Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Pa. offers fresh evidence rejected mail ballots can be decisive

Pennsylvania voting

Unlike this Philadelphia voter, most Pennsylvanians mailed their primary ballots in June. About 20,000 were rejected.

Bastiaan Slabbers/Getty Images

In what could be a sobering preview of the November election, about 20,000 absentee ballots returned for the Pennsylvania primary were not counted because they arrived too late or the envelopes weren't signed.

While a tiny share of the overall vote in June, the number has enormous potential significance for the presidential election. That's because, in 2016, Donald Trump carried the state and its 20 electoral votes by just twice that amount, 44,000 votes.

The rejection number, reported this week by election officials in Harrisburg, underscores how a close presidential outcome — and the arguments both candidates might make in challenging the results in tossup states — will be shaped by lawsuit decisions and legislative maneuvers in the next seven weeks over the once-arcane rules governing mailed votes.


The numbers of votes cast remotely will balloon into the millions this fall, just in the battleground states alone, as people continue to avoid public places like voting stations because of the coronavirus pandemic. The switch comes against a backdrop of relentless and unfounded allegations from Trump that widespread mail voting will produce massive election fraud.

In addition, the ability of the Postal Service to properly handle the large number of mailed ballots has been called into question because of changes instituted by new Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a major Trump donor.

About 90 percent of the uncounted ballots in Pennsylvania were the result of missing the deadline for their arrival at the election offices. The state is one of 33, along with the District of Columbia, that require mailed ballots to arrive by Election Day.

That rule is unlikely to be changed by the Republican-majority General Assembly, which has been haggling with Democratic Gov. Tom Wolfe over what looks to become a very modest collection of last-minute election law changes — perhaps including new permission for local clerks to begin before Election Day the preparing of returned ballots for tabulating as soon as the polls close.

Much of the remaining rejected June ballots were tossed because signatures on the envelopes were missing or looked unlike the signature in the voter's file. On Monday state officials told election administrators in the 67 counties they may no longer reject a ballot solely because an election official believes the handwriting is off. That prompted the League of Women Voters and the Urban League to drop a federal lawsuit challenging the signature rules.

The rejection rate in the Pennsylvania primary was relatively small, less than 1 percent of the 2.7 million ballots cast and just 1.3 percent of the 1.5 million votes submitted by mail.

Of the 33.4 million mail ballots cast in the 2016 general election, about 1 percent were tossed, according to the federal Election Assistance Commission.

Read More

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

Hands holding bars over "Se Habla Español" sign

AI generated

Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision from its “shadow docket” that reversed a lower-court injunction and gave federal immigration agents in Los Angeles the green light to resume stops based on four deeply troubling criteria:

  • Apparent race or ethnicity
  • Speaking Spanish or accented English
  • Presence in a particular location
  • Type of work

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is still working its way through the courts. But the message from this emergency ruling is unmistakable: the constitutional protections that once shielded immigrant communities from racial profiling are now conditional—and increasingly fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less