Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ohio voters will face single ballot question on expanded voting

Ohio voters
Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

In a victory for election reformers, the Ohio Supreme Court has decided a package of proposed election changes in how the state votes should be put to voters as a single measure.

The court on Tuesday agreed with the organization promoting the referendum and blocked Secretary of State Frank LaRose and other Republican state officials from dividing the proposed constitutional amendment into four ballot questions.


The ruling, which appears technical, is nonetheless significant for those who favor the reforms. That's because they believe their package has a better chance if put to one up-or-down vote. Plus, Ohio is a presidential battleground that's tilted red in recent years and anything that could boost turnout is likely to favor Democrats.

The Secure and Fair Elections Amendment would bring about automatic and same-day voter registration, a guarantee of a month of in-person early voting and routine post-election audits to verify that election results are accurate.

Advocates for the package, a collection of mostly progresisve group called Ohioans for Secure and Fair Elections, still must gather more than 400,000 signatures of registered voters by July 1 to get the amendment on the Nov. 3 ballot.

Had the high court ruled the other way, that signature threshold would have been quadrupled — and essentially impossible to meet without a miraculous disappearance of the coronavirus.

The Ohio Ballot Board, which includes the secretary of state and four appointed members, had voted in March to break up the proposed amendment into separate questions. The subsequent lawsuit notes that LaRose had already stated his opposition to the package and that dividing the question would hurt its chances of going before the votes.

The Supreme Court did reject the request by proponents of the amendments for additional time to gather signatures.

Approval would make Ohio the 17th state that automatically registers eligible residents when they do business with the motor vehicle bureau. Most are Democratic strongholds and just two, Colorado and Michigan, are on the list of remotely possible swing states this fall.

Adopting the package would permit voters to register and cast ballots at polling locations during early voting and on Election Day, similar to the laws on the books in 21 states. The deadline is now 30 days beforehand, one of the longest lead times in the country.

Ohio has famously been carried by the winner of every presidential election since 1964, and no Republicans has ever won the White House without it. President Trump is counting on its 18 electoral votes, but his edge in recent statewide polling has slipped now that former Vice President Joe Biden has secured the Democratic nomination.

Read More

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less