Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The state of voting: July 18, 2022

State of voting - election law changes
The state of voting: July 11, 2022
The state of voting: July 11, 2022

This weekly update summarizing legislative activity affecting voting and elections is powered by the Voting Rights Lab. Sign up for VRL’s weekly newsletter here.

The Voting Rights Lab is tracking 2,185 bills so far this session, with 579 bills that tighten the rules governing voter access or election administration and 1,041 bills that expand the rules.

Both New Hampshire and Pennsylvania created new avenues to criminalize the actions of election officials last week, and newly filed Wisconsin litigation seeks to force election officials to reject mail ballots cast by eligible voters due to minor omissions by a voter’s witness.

Meanwhile, in North Carolina a federal court decision gave voters with disabilities more flexibility in finding assistance, and the governor signed a budget bill that will fund the state’s membership in ERIC, a database that helps states maintain accurate voter lists. Also, California lawmakers sent a bill to the governor that would provide better transparency around signature verification.

Here are the details:


A federal judge blocked a North Carolina law that restricted assistance for voters with disabilities, and the governor signed a budget bill that includes funding for North Carolina to join ERIC for one year. A federal judge found that a state law violated the Voting Rights Act because it prohibited people living in facilities such as nursing homes, hospitals and clinics from relying on employees of those facilities for help in applying for, completing and returning mail ballots. The law only allowed voters to receive assistance from a close relative or legal guardian; following the court’s permanent injunction, North Carolina voters with disabilities will be able to receive assistance from anyone they choose.

Meanwhile, Gov. Roy Cooper signed H.B. 103, which provides funding for North Carolina to join the Electronic Registration Information Center, which houses a database used by 31 other states and Washington, D.C., to maintain accurate voter lists. While the budget bill provides funding for North Carolina to join ERIC, it only funds the state’s membership for one year rather than annually. The bill also requires that the State Board of Elections seek the legislature’s approval prior to making any changes to election policies or procedures if required for ERIC membership, which may limit the board’s ability to use the database.

New Hampshire enacts laws criminalizing election officials for good-faith conduct. Gov. Chris Sununu signed H.B. 1567, legislation that removes the attorney general’s discretion when it comes to election law – and instead requires the office to investigate all alleged misconduct by election officials. When applied in conjunction with another bill enacted during the 2022 legislative session ( S.B. 418) this could result in the prosecution of election officials for good-faith execution of their responsibilities. S.B. 418 further creates a potentially unworkable administrative timeline that may cause election officials to miss deadlines for mailing out ballots to active military voters in 2024.

Pennsylvania creates new criminal penalties for election officials and prohibits private funding of elections – but also provides new public funding. Last Monday, Gov. Tom Wolf signed a law that prohibits private funding of elections and enforces the prohibition with new criminal penalties for election officials who violate it. Notably, however, the new law allows the private donation of voting locations and volunteer services to continue. It also creates a grant program to provide public funding if counties commit to following certain election procedures, such as early processing of mail ballots.

New Wisconsin litigation seeks to reject mail ballots cast by eligible voters due to minor omissions by a voter’s witness. A new lawsuit seeks to force election officials to reject the ballots of eligible Wisconsin voters over minor omissions, such as a missing ZIP code for their witness. Wisconsin is one of a small number of states that requires voters to fill out their mail ballots in front of a witness. After the voter puts the ballot in the certificate envelope and signs and seals it, the witness must also sign and put their address on the certificate envelope. In accordance with guidance issued by the Wisconsin Election Commission in 2016, election officials may fill in missing witness address information in certain circumstances. If this litigation is successful, they will be prohibited from doing so in future elections, and will instead be required to reject mail ballots that are missing any witness address information. This new litigation comes on the heels of a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision issued last week that overruled previous WEC guidance and prohibited drop boxes.

California sends a bill to the governor that provides greater transparency to the signature verification process. The California Legislature sent A.B. 1619 to the governor’s desk, a bill that would ensure voters are informed when they register to vote that the signature they provide during the registration process will be used to validate the signature on their mail ballot.

Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less