Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Missouri’s new rules for notarizing mail ballots getting tested in court

Missouri flag
Ahmed Zaggoudi/Getty Images

Progressive groups may use the courts to pursue even more wide-open absentee balloting in Missouri this year.

At issue is a new law, enacted this month in response to the coronavirus pandemic, suspending the state's usually strict excuse rules for voting by mail — but requiring a notary's signature on August primary and November presidential election ballot envelopes of people younger than 65.

The NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union have sued to block that witness requirement, which they argue is unconstitutionally burdensome during a public health emergency and discriminates in favor of older voters.


A trial judge in Jefferson City dismissed the case, but on Tuesday the state Supreme Court reversed that ruling and said the lawsuit could proceed.

The justices rejected the argument, at least for now, from the office of Attorney General Jay Aschroft, who fought the measure written by his fellow Republicans in control of the General Assembly.

"A bad flu season does involve tens of thousands of deaths nationwide," Ashcroft's chief litigator, D. John Sauer, said during oral arguments last week. "But nobody has ever contended that fear of contracting or spreading the flu is a statutory ground to cast an absentee ballot in Missouri."

The ultimate outcome could set a precedent for challenges to rules in the 11 other states that require some sort of countersignature on a mailed ballot.

It also could influence the turnout in Missouri, where President Trump is confident of securing the 10 electoral votes for a second time but GOP Gov. Mike Parson is expecting a viable challenge for re-election.

Officials are expecting a burst of mail voting because of the relaxed excuse requirement, after several elections where fewer than 10 percent of votes were cast that way. The question is whether the witness rule, if it survives, holds down the increase.

Missouri is also the home of Roy Blunt, a member of the Senate leadership and the principal Republican negotiator in Congress on federal election funding.

On Tuesday he pledged to support additional subsidies to the states in time to help them conduct healthy and efficient elections during the pandemic, but it's unclear how close he's willing to come to the $3.6 billion approved a month ago by the Democratic House — and whether a deal is struck in time to allow the cash to be spent by election officials in time.

Missouri remains one of the states where voting during a public health emergency will be most difficult, with or without notary-free ballots. Registration ends well ahead of Election Day and there is no early in-person voting, for example.


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.

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