Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Continued party-line voting in Texas among three new election easements

Texas voting

Voters in Texas, like these waiting in line in Houston for the March 3 primary, will be able to vote straight-ticket under a judge's ruling on Friday.

Mark Felix/Getty Images

A federal judge says that for this election, at least, Texas must preserve straight-ticket voting, which is how two-thirds of the state's ballots are usually cast.

The decision, if it survives a promised appeal by Republicans in charge in Austin, would likely assist Democrats within reach of their best showing in the state in decades this fall. But it would distress many democracy reform advocates, who lament how civic engagement is limited and two-party dominance is preserved when voters are allowed a single choice supporting all of one party's candidates.

As voting policies continue to shift, thanks to decisions in statehouses and courthouses across the country, the ruling was one of three developments in purple states Friday. Iowa joined the roster of states that will start processing absentee voting envelopes sooner than usual, and Montana joined the list of states extending the usual deadline for the arrival of mailed ballots.

These are details of the most recent developments.


Texas

The ruling came less than three weeks before the start of early in-person voting in the second-most-populous state, which for more than a century has given Texans the opportunity to cast a single-party line vote — which 5.1 million did just two years ago. The Republican-majority Legislature eliminated that option starting this fall.

But Judge Mariana Garcia Marmolejo of Laredo temporarily blocked implementation of the law on the grounds that, during the coronavirus pandemic, it would "cause irreparable injury" to voters "by creating mass lines at the polls and increasing the amount of time voters are exposed to Covid-19." She also said the switch would discriminate against Black and Latino voters because their waits would be especially long, in part because many live in urban and rural precincts with the fewest polling places per person.

Garcia Marmolejo's decision effectively reverses her ruling in June dismissing an earlier version of the lawsuit, in which the Democrats pressed essentially the same arguments the judge embraced this time. She said some procedural differences, but mainly the persistence of the health emergency, are what prompted her change of mind.

GOP Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Saturday he would press the federal appeals courts to act quickly to reverse the judge, because otherwise officials will have to scramble to reprogram voting machines and reprint ballots.

Texas historically has one of the nation's longest ballots, especially in presidential years, when many state and county legislative, administrative and judicial posts are also contested. Democrats argue the straight-ticket option allows many voters to do what they'd do anyway, if they had to mark dozens of ovals, and has the vital benefit of keeping people moving quickly through polling places.

Republican pushed the law ending the practice with arguments echoing many good-government experts, who say it will give underdogs and outsiders stronger chances and compel voters to become better-informed about all the contests and candidates.

Texas is one of seven seven states that have done away with straight-ticket balloting in the past decade, leaving just five sure to make the option available this fall: Battleground Michigan and solidly Republican Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma and South Carolina

President Trump carried Texas by 9 percentage points in 2016, extending a GOP winning streak that started in 1980, but two polls released last week had him ahead of Joe Biden by 3 and 5 percentage points — essentially within the margin of error. Democrats also are within reach at taking several congressional seats from the GOP and maybe reclaiming the state House for the first time in 18 years.

Iowa

The bipartisan state Legislative Council approved a request from Republican Secretary of State Paul to allow election clerks to open outer absentee ballot envelopes and verify signatures starting two days earlier than in the past — on the Saturday before Election Day. And now the counting of the ballots can begin a day ahead of, instead of on, Election Day.

Like so many other election officials expecting a record number of mailed-in votes, Iowa is worried that delayed starts to processing and counting will lead to delayed results in close races — and make voters anxious about the election's integrity.

Nearly 600,000 Iowans have requested absentee ballots so far, compared to fewer than 150,000 at this time in 2016. Trump appears to have a narrow but hardly impenetrable lead in the race for the state's six electoral votes, while GOP Sen. Joni Ernst's reelection quest and Democrats' bids to hold three of the four House seats are all too close to call.

The Legislative Council, a group of lawmakers empowered to make some policy switches in place of the Legislature, also decided to allow the mailing of ballots to voters in health care facilities — normally, the law requires hand delivery — and to allow the secretary of state to shift polling place locations in an emergency.

Montana

State trial Judge Donald Harris decided that absentee ballots postmarked by the time the polls close must still be counted if they arrive six days late — by Nov. 9.

The pandemic "presents an untenable problem for voters who wish to have all the available information prior to casting their ballot, who wish to reduce potential Covid-19 exposure, and who also wish to have their vote counted," he wrote. "Moving the Election Day receipt deadline to a postmark deadline would alleviate the pressures voters are facing in the November 2020 general election and result in less disenfranchised voters."

Unless there's an appeal, which did not immediately seem likely, Montana will be the ninth state to extend the deadlines this year — reducing the number of disenfranchisements but extending the timetable for knowing the results of close races. The other deadlines have ranged from three to 17 days.

Trump is confident of securing the state's three electoral votes again. The marquee election is the tossup Senate contest between GOP incumbent Steve Daines and Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less