Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Voting rights advocates suffer three losses

Mail-in vallot

Efforts to expand mailed-in voting has spread through courtrooms and state legislatures. Advocates for expanding voting suffered three defeats recently.

Darylann Elmi/Getty Images

After a string of recent successes, advocates for improving the fairness of elections and expanding access to voting amid the coronavirus pandemic have suffered three defeats in recent days.

The setbacks came in Texas, Arizona and Iowa — all states where the Democrats believe they can score big upsets, at the presidential and congressional levels, if the voting rules are easeds enough to allow significant turnout this fall — no matter the state of the coronavirus pandemic.

The way elections are conducted has been the subject of several dozen lawsuits in state and federal courts as well as battles in numerous state legislatures. Who wins the bulk of them could shape not only President Trump's chances of reelection but also whether the Senate stays in Republican hands or turns Democratic.

The recent decisions are:


Arizona

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Democratic campaign committees that challenged the method for determining the order that candidates appear on the ballot.

Judge Diane Humetewa ruled that neither the individual voters nor the groups had shown that they were hurt by the state's system for placing names on the ballot. Under state law, names are listed in descending order according to the votes cast for governor in that county.

Republican Gov. Doug Ducey carried 11 of the 15 counties while winning his second term in 2018. That means the GOP candidate will be listed first in those counties this fall.

The lawsuit argued that this process was unfair because research has shown that the person listed first on a ballot gets an advantage of several percentage points.

The suit noted that other states have gone to a rotation system to determine the ballot order. There was no word yet on whether the decision would be appealed.

Iowa

On Thursday, GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a law that requires the secretary of state to get approval from legislative leaders before expanding absentee balloting.

Leading up to the June primary, Secretary of State Paul Pate, a Republican, extended the mail-in voting period and sent ballot request forms to all registered voters in the state.

Under the new law, the secretary of state must obtain approval before changing election procedures from the Legislative Council, a group composed of leadership and long-serving members of both parties.

Texas

The Supreme Court decided not to consider whether the state should allow all voters to cast ballots by mail.

The Democratic Party and several voters had asked the court to reinstate a district judge's ruling allowing all voters to submit their ballots by mail, not just those 65 years or older, arguing the regulations amount to age discrimination. Texas is the biggest state to take no action to ease voting during the coronavirus pandemic.

That ruling had been overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The state's primary runoff election is scheduled for July 14.

The plaintiffs asked the high court for emergency relief, arguing that the appeals court ruling "forces millions of Texas voters to either risk their health at the polls or relinquish their right to vote."

Read More

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less