Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A first in Oklahoma: Lawmakers reverse a court to still restrict mail voting

Oklahoma Legislature

The Legislature revived an unusually strict rule for absentee voting: all must include an affidavit signed by a notary.

Jordan McAlister/Getty Images

In just three days, the Republicans in charge of lawmaking in Oklahoma have reversed a decision by the state's top court that absentee ballots don't have to be notarized.

It's the first time this year, when the coronavirus pandemic has launched battles over mail-in voting in courthouses across the country, when the political branches of a state government have reinstated election rules struck down as overly restrictive by the judicial branch.

Oklahoma has now rejoined a roster of just three states — the others are South Carolina and Mississippi — that even during this time of social distancing will require absentee voters to sign an affidavit and then get it stamped in person by a notary public.


The rapid-fire sequence of actions went like this: The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of the League of Women Voters, which argued in its lawsuit that getting a ballot notarized during the pandemic would force people to put their health at risk. The state House passed a measure reversing that ruling on Wednesday, the state Senate cleared the bill Thursday afternoon and Gov. Kevin Stitt signed it that evening.

Republicans, who hold 79 percent of the seats in the Legislature, argued the notary requirement was needed to prevent voter fraud and that the state's top court had exceeded its authority.

Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat, for example, said the justices had "legislated from the bench" at a time when "Oklahomans need to have confidence that our election process is secure and free from fraud."

Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the state's American Civil Liberties Union chapter, said in a statement: "This legislative attack is based on bogus claims of voter fraud, but it is abundantly clear that the real motivation is to make it harder for Oklahomans to exercise their power at the ballot."

The law — which not only requires mail-in ballots to get notarized but also limits how many documents each notary may witness — has clearly had an effect on voting from home in the state. Just 5 percent of ballots were cast that way in 2018, a midterm election when about a quarter of all votes nationwide were mailed in.

Congressional and state legislative primaries are set for June 30, but the top issue on the ballot is a citizen-driven statewide referendum that would expand Medicaid to cover tens of thousands of lower-income Oklahomans. Stitt and most of the state's GOP leadership oppose the measure.

One potential easement was written into the new law in response to Covid-19. If the governor in the next eight days reinstates his emergency declaration, which he lifted just last week, absentee voters may submit a copy of their driver's license or other ID in lieu of finding a notary.


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