Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

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