Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

State lawmakers make both voting easements and restrictions a legislative priority

Georgia voters

Some states may consider legislation to expand early in-person voting while others are looking to make such rules more restrictive.

Tami Chappell/Getty Images

In the aftermath of an election that included dozens of changes to voting laws, states have seen a surge in legislation that could further alter the voting process — or unwind some of the advancements made in response to Covid-19.

The pandemic prompted more Americans than ever to vote by mail last year. Seeing broad success with this and other alternative voting methods, Democrats want to make absentee and early voting both permanent and more widespread. But Republicans want stricter voting rules to protect against fraud — even though no significant allegations were proven true last fall.

A report released Tuesday by the Brennan Center for Justice, a liberal public policy institute at New York University Law School, found that just a month into the new year more than 500 voting rights bills have already been introduced in 37 state legislatures — more than double what had been proposed by this time last year. While a majority of this legislation is aimed at expanding access to the ballot box, more than 100 measures across 28 states would restrict voting access.


Of course, increased volume does not necessarily translate into legislative success. A study of 2013-14 state legislation by CQ StateTrack, which monitors bills in every legislature, found that one-quarter of state-level bills became law. The political leanings of individual states is more predictive than the overall volume.

States with legislation to change voting rulesSource: Brennan Center for Justice

Legislation to restrict voting access

The Brennan Center's analysis found that legislators have introduced three times the number of restrictive voting bills this year. These 106 bills are mostly aimed at limiting mail voting and adding more stringent voting requirements. At this time last year, only 35 such bills had been proposed.

While a lot of these bills won't succeed, in GOP strongholds they could gain serious traction. Missouri, Mississippi and New Hampshire are among the red states considering these types of measures.

In battleground Pennsylvania, lawmakers have introduced 11 different bills that would restrict voting access, the most of any state so far. Three would eliminate the state's recently adopted no-excuse absentee voting policy and another would make it harder to obtain a mail ballot by removing the permanent early voting list.

Ten states have proposals to add new or more strict voter ID requirements for those who wish to vote in person early or on Election Day. And four states are considering doing away with in-person registration on Election Day.

Legislation to expand voting access

Meanwhile, state lawmakers are also considering many more proposals to make voting easier and more accessible. There are currently more than 400 bills pending in 35 states — more than double the amount introduced at this time last year, according to the Brennan Center's analysis.

These bills are mainly focused on expanding access to mail voting and in-person early voting, bolstering voter registration and fortifying voting rights policies. Democratic-controlled states will try to piggyback on the success of these reforms in the 2020 election and establish more permanent policies moving forward.

Solidly blue New York leads the pack with 56 reform bills introduced so far. Texas is not far behind with 53 such bills, but passing voting reform in the Lone Star State will be much more of an uphill battle.

Lawmakers in 11 states want to adopt permanent no-excuse absentee voting policies. Bills in eight states would require local officials to provide drop boxes for absentee ballots. And 13 states may consider allowing election officials to process mail ballots earlier than in past years.

Legislation to establish early in-person voting, extend the early voting period or add early voting sites has been introduced in 14 states. Six states have bills to adopt same-day voter registration, five have bills for automatic voter registration and seven have legislation to adopt both.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less