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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less