Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Judge blocks Montana ballot harvesting law at tribes' urging

Native Americans

Members of the Crow tribe in Montana, seen participating in a 2018 powwow, are among those who sued over a new law restricting who can pick up and deliver mail-in ballots.

Tom Williams/Getty Images

A Montana judge has blocked new state restrictions on the collecting of others' ballots, a victory for Native American tribes that say their members rely on the help.

The law probably violates the tribal members' right to vote because it would make it especially difficult for them to make sure their own ballots got from reservations and other remote areas to election offices, District Judge Jessica Fehr of Yellowstone County said Tuesday in putting a hold on the requirements.

Her injunction, while not final, is nonetheless the latest voting rights victory for people in Indian Country, who say too many election rules disregard their special circumstances and amount to suppression. It's also the latest turn in the generally partisan battle over so-called ballot harvesting.


The American Civil Liberties Union had sued on behalf of several tribes in March, challenging a state law passed in 2017 and endorsed by statewide referendum the next year. It says caregivers, family members and acquaintances can collect no more than six ballots in an election. Proponents say such limits prevent election fraud by preventing partisan operatives from conducting mass collections of mail-in ballots — potentially from both friendly and unfriendly precincts.

The plaintiffs say that's not what they're worried about. Their seven reservations are particularly isolated and many residents lack cars and are economically strapped — so they rely on others to ferry their sealed ballot envelopes sometimes dozens of miles to either the post office or the local election office.

The law explicitly prohibits independent ballot-collection organizations from helping tribal members cast their mail-in ballots. But without the help, the lawsuit argues, many Native Americans will "be effectively unable to vote."

The judge agreed, emphatically. The law "fails to enhance the security of absentee voting; it does not make absentee voting easier or more effective; it does not reduce the cost of conducting elections and it does not increase voter turnout," she wrote. And it would "significantly suppress voter turnout by disproportionately harming rural communities, especially individual Native Americans in rural tribal communities."

"This decision is a huge victory for voting rights," said Alora Thomas-Lundborg, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "This ruling removes a major obstacle to thousands of Native Americans in Montana who want to participate in the democratic process and vote free of illegal obstructions."

Among the 27 states where a voter can designate someone to return their ballot, a dozen have placed limits on the number of ballots any one agent can collect and return.

About three-quarters of the state's ballots have been cast by mail in recent years, a share that may only go up because of the coronavirus. Its primary was conducted entirely remotely because of Covid-19, a first.

Montana's three electoral votes are very likely to go for President Trump. But solid turnout on the reservations, which vote reliably Democratic, could help Gov. Steve Bullock's highly competitive effort to unseat Republican Sen. Steve Daines.


Read More

Keep artificial intelligence out of American classrooms

Fourth-grade students read books in the elementary school at the John F. Kennedy Schule dual-language public school on Sept. 18, 2008, in Berlin.

(Sean Gallup/Getty Images/Tribune Content Agency)

Keep artificial intelligence out of American classrooms

Norway is, by almost any metric, a profoundly successful nation. It’s rich, democratic and relatively corruption-free. It’s not a socialist country, but fans of a robust welfare state and high taxes see much to admire in the very progressive Norwegian model. It also benefits from having the biggest and arguably best-run sovereign wealth fund in the world.

And yet, Norway nearly ruined its children.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of orange-colored megaphones, one megaphone in the middle is red and facing the opposite direction of the others.

A growing crisis threatens U.S. public data. Experts warn disappearing federal datasets could undermine science, policy, and democracy—and outline a plan to protect them.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

America's Data Crisis: Saving Trusted Facts Is Essential to Democracy

In March 2026, more than a hundred information and data experts gathered in a converted Christian Science church to confront a problem most Americans never see, but that shapes nearly every public debate we have. The nonprofit Internet Archive convened this national Information Stewardship Forum at their San Francisco headquarters because something fundamental is breaking: the country’s shared foundation of facts.

For decades, the United States has relied on a vast ecosystem of federal data on health, climate, the economy, education, demographics, scientific research, and more. This data is the backbone of journalism, policymaking, scientific discovery, and public accountability. It is how we know whether the air is safe to breathe, whether unemployment is rising or falling, whether a new disease is spreading, or whether a community is being left behind.

Keep ReadingShow less
Warrantless Surveillance and TPS for Haitians

Bamilia Delcine Olistin restocks product at Bon Samaritain Grocery, a Haitian-owned grocery, on February 3, 2026 in Springfield, Ohio. A federal judge issued a temporary stay blocking the Trump administration's attempt to strip Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian immigrants, but Haitian TPS beneficiaries and residents of Springfield continue to face uncertainty over their protected status.

Getty Images, Jon Cherry

Warrantless Surveillance and TPS for Haitians

Warrantless Surveillance

Almost 3 weeks ago, House Republicans appeared to be spitting mad because the Senate had had the temerity to pass a DHS funding agreement overnight by unanimous consent and then recess. The Senate did that because it was the best deal that could get passed. (The House still hasn’t acted on that Senate DHS funding bill.)

But last night, around 2 am, the House passed a 10 day extension of existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702 authorities by unanimous consent and then recessed until Monday. Apparently, it’s fine when the House does it. Why did the House do this? Because it was the best deal that could get passed.

Keep ReadingShow less