Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

New Jersey, Kentucky expand mail-in voting; Indiana does not

New Jersey Gov. Phil Muphy, mail-in voting

Gov. Phil Murphy decided every New Jersey voters will be sent a mail-in ballot for November.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

New Jersey and Kentucky have joined the growing list of places where voting by mail is going to become much more widespread this fall. Indiana, not so much — at least not yet.

As the country continues to adjust to conducting a presidential election during a pandemic, more and more states are taking a range of routes to make it easier to cast a ballot. Only a few have gone the other way.

Solidly blue New Jersey has decided to proactively deliver ballots to all registered votes, a practice President Trump alleges without evidence will lead to widespread fraud. Reliably red Kentucky has made a narrower decision to allow fear of Covid-19 to count as an excuse for requesting an absentee ballot.

Here are the details:


New Jersey

Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy announced Friday that the state will conduct its general election mostly by mail after delivering a ballot to all 6.3 million registered voters.

New Jersey thereby becomes the 11th place where every voter will receive an absentee ballot in the mail. Five states (Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Hawaii) planned to do so before the pandemic. Before New Jersey's decision they had already been joined just for this year by California, Vermont, Nevada, the District of Columbia and almost every county in Montana.

Murphy cited the success of the state's mostly vote-by-mail primary in July in making the announcement that another wave of ballots will be mailed the first week of October.

Voters can return them by mail, drop them into a secure box or take them to the polling places that remain open. Schools, which are widely used as voting centers, will be closed for in-person classes on Nov. 3.

Murphy said the options are being offered because of concerns about the Postal Service. "Making it easier to vote does not favor any one political party but it does favor democracy," he said.

The state's 14 electoral votes are a near lock for Joe Biden, but contests in three congressional districts are competitive.

Kentucky

Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear and Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams agreed to renew for November the deal they struck for the primary: Anyone concerned about catching Covid-19 may vote absentee.

It's the ninth state to relax for this presidential election the usual requirements to cite a specific reason when applying for an absentee ballot. Some have suspended the excuse rules altogether. Others, like Kentucky, have added worry about viral exposure as an acceptable reason.

Other options in Kentucky will include early in-person voting starting Oct. 13, more in-person polling places than in the June primary and a voting "super center" in each county where residents from any precinct may vote. Kentuckians will be able to request an absentee ballot online.

Trump can count on the state's eight electoral votes. The hottest contest is the well-financed but longshot challenge to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's bid for a seventh term

Indiana

The state is for now one of only seven where an excuse beyond the coronavirus will be required to vote by mail. (The others are Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.)

That's because the state election commission deadlocked Friday: The two Democrats voted to expand voting by mail for essentially any reason but the two Republicans opposed. The commission had voted to allow any resident to request an absentee ballot for the state's June primary election.

"Just because something was agreed upon in March because of an emergency doesn't mean those same factors automatically make this appropriate this time," said GOP Commissioner Zachary Klutz.

Proponents of expanding vote-by-mail in Indiana will now look to the federal courts, where several lawsuits are pending.

Read More

​DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly.

DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly speaks to the gathering at an adoption ceremony in Torrington.

Laura Tillman / CT Mirror

What’s Behind the Smiles on National Adoption Day

In the past 21 years, I’ve fostered and adopted children with complex medical and developmental needs. Last year, after a grueling 2,205 days navigating the DCF system, we adopted our 7yo daughter. This year, we were the last family on the docket for National Adoption Day after 589 days of suspense. While my 2 yo daughter’s adoption was a moment of triumph, the cold, empty courtroom symbolized the system’s detachment from the lived experiences of marginalized families.

National Adoption Day often serves as a time to highlight stories of joy and family unification. Yet, behind the scenes, the obstacles faced by children in foster care and the families that support them tell a more complex story—one that demands attention and action. For those of us who have navigated the foster care system as caregivers, the systemic indifference and disparities experienced by marginalized children and families, particularly within BIPOC and disability communities, remain glaringly unresolved.

Keep Reading Show less
Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep Reading Show less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep Reading Show less