Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Navajo Nation voters sue over Arizona's absentee ballot deadline

American flag with a Native American

Navajo Nation voters are asking Arizona election officials to count absentee ballots that arrive up to 10 days after Election Day.

Aurora Samperio/Getty Images

Six Navajo Nation citizens have asked a federal court for relief from an Arizona law that requires absentee ballots to arrive by Election Day in order to be counted.

The group filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Wednesday, requesting more time for absentee ballots to arrive in the mail as long as they are postmarked by Nov. 3. The suit argues Arizona's strict deadline disenfranchises voters who live on reservations where mail service is slower and less reliable.

Given the anticipated vote-by-mail surge this fall, the Postal Service has advised voters to mail their ballots as early as possible to ensure they arrive in time to be counted. Thirty-three states, including Arizona, have laws against counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day.


The lawsuit asks a federal judge to require Arizona election officials to count absentee ballots coming from Indian reservations as long as they are postmarked by Election Day and arrive no more than 10 days after the election.

An analysis by Four Directions, a Native American voting rights group, found that certified first-class mail from Scottsdale, Ariz., took just 18 hours to arrive at the Maricopa County Recorder's Office, whereas mail coming from locations in the Navajo Nation took six to 10 days.

"Voting by mail systems rest upon the premise that all citizens have equal mail service, however, hundreds of thousands of rural Americans have non-standard mail service burdened with a range of service limits including irregular service or unreliable service, no residential delivery, excessive distances to post offices or other postal providers with limited hours of operation among other issues," the lawsuit says.

Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs has indicated she would comply with a court-ordered rule change.


Read More

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less