Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

New Hampshire Republicans stop no-excuse absentee voting

New Hampshire capitol

Republican lawmakers say New Hampshire's rules are "adequate."

jiawangkun/Getty Images

Republican lawmakers have turned back efforts to make no-excuse absentee voting a permanent fixture in New Hampshire.

On Thursday, the GOP-led state Senate voted along party lines to reject a bill that would have eliminated the excuse requirement to vote by mail.

During the 2020 election, all 1.1 million New Hampshire voters were able to request an absentee ballot due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Democratic lawmakers had hoped to make voting by mail a fixed option in future voting.


With the legislation now dead, New Hampshire will return to the absentee voting rules it employed prior to the pandemic. In order to qualify for a mail ballot, voters must have one of these excuses: an absence from their city or town on Election Day, a religious observance, a disability or illness, or an employment commitment, including caregiving, during the entire in-person voting period.

Expanding absentee eligibility to everyone last year gave voters the convenience and flexibility to choose whatever voting method was best for them, proponents of the bill said. One-third of the more than 814,000 ballots cast by New Hampshirites in the 2020 election were by mail.

Senate Democratic Leader Donna Soucy said because mail voting was so widely used, she's concerned some voters have come to expect the no-excuse policy as the norm.

"Now that we experienced the largest election in our state's history, and have accommodated all of these voters, why would we now go back and tell them that this process doesn't make sense anymore?" she said.

But Republican lawmakers maintain that the state's current law is "adequate" and allows plenty of opportunities for people to vote absentee.

"Give me an example that we don't cover that isn't a person who is just too lazy to go to the poll on Election Day," said GOP Sen. James Gray.

Currently, 34 states and Washington, D.C., allow for no-excuse absentee voting, and during the 2020 election, all but five states expanded eligibility. Now, state lawmakers across the country are considering hundreds of bills to reform the election process, with Democrats largely in favor of expanding access and Republicans pushing for restrictions.


Read More

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less