Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Veto in N.H. for permanent switch to no-excuse voting by mail

Chris Sununu

The veto was by GOP Gov. Chris Sununu, although he is allowing fear of the coronavirus as a valid reason to vote absentee through November.

Shannon Finney/Getty Images

The switch to no-excuse absentee voting in New Hampshire will not outlive the pandemic.

Three months ago, Gov. Chris Sununu used his executive power to declare that fear of catching the coronavirus is a valid reason to vote by mail in the Sept. 8 primary and Nov. 3 general election. But on Friday he vetoed a measure that would have eliminated the excuse requirement and allowed all voters to cast ballots by mail indefinitely.

Since March, 35 states have made changes to expand mail voting in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, but almost all of these adjustments are temporary and will only last through the November election.


New Hampshire will remain one of 16 states requiring a specific reason to receive an absentee ballot. It's also among just nine states that do not permit people to register to vote online — which also would have changed under the vetoed measure.

The bill also would have allowed local election officials to start tabulating mailed ballots before the polls close on Election Day, which is permitted in about half the states, and would have had the state become the 31st to join the Electronic Registration Information Center, which helps states maintain voter rolls.

The package was cleared by the Democratic legislature without sufficient votes for an override. The Republican governor called it a "partisan wish list of unreasonable and unnecessary provisions" and said the authors were seeking "to take advantage of a global pandemic to fundamentally and permanently weaken New Hampshire's election system."

During almost four years as governor, Sununu has opposed most election and political reform efforts in Concord, especially since Democrats won control of both the state House and Senate in 2018. But he was among the first GOP governors to use his own powers to make voting easier in light of Covid-19.

He faces a competitive race for re-election this fall.

"Rather than allowing New Hampshire, a state that prides itself on commitment and participation in the democratic process, to move forward, Sununu has chosen once again to hold up unreliable, antiquated systems that systemically put up roadblocks for new voters," said Democratic state Sen. Melanie Levesque, one of the package's authors.


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