Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The state of voting: Aug. 22, 2022

voting legislation updates

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 2,195 bills so far this session, with 581 bills that tighten voter access or election administration and 1,048 bills that expand the rules. The rest are neutral or mixed or unclear in their impact.

With little legislative activity over the summer, much of the focus now is on executive action by state agencies. The highlights last week occurred in Wisconsin (where the Elections Commission reactivated thousands of voters’ registrations) and Iowa (where the secretary of state announced grants to improve accessibility in and around polling places.)

Looking ahead: The Voting Rights Lab is watching a number of state court cases that are moving, including two new lawsuits challenging Arizona’s new proof of citizenship requirement and an open question of whether North Carolina’s legislature had the authority to refer a voter ID amendment to voters.

Here are the details:


The Wisconsin Elections Commission reactivates more than 30,000 voters’ registration. In 2021, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the WEC unconstitutionally purged tens of thousands of voters from the rolls when it failed to give voters notice of, and opportunity to avoid, deactivation in July of that year. On August 12, the WEC reactivated the registrations of 30,554 voters in accordance with a stipulation filed by the parties last month. The stipulation also requires the WEC to notify voters facing deactivation before removing them from the rolls, providing them with the opportunity to take any necessary action to avoid deactivation if they so choose.

The North Carolina Supreme Court limits the authority of the state’s racially gerrymandered legislature. In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court conclusively determined that 28 legislative districts in North Carolina were drawn in a manner that violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Separately, in 2018, the General Assembly enacted legislation to put an amendment on the ballot that would create stricter state voter ID requirements. Last week, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that because the 2018 legislature was composed of a substantial number of legislators from districts that had been unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered, it lacked complete authority to refer the amendment to voters. The state Supreme Court remanded the ongoing litigation over the voter ID amendment back to the trial court for consideration of additional questions.

Iowa counties receive funds to improve access for voters with disabilities. Secretary of State Paul Pate announced that his office will make $1,000 grants available to each of the state’s 99 counties to fund improvements to polling place accessibility for voters with disabilities. Nearly 300,000 Iowans have a disability. Iowa counties may use the additional funding directly on accessibility infrastructure or to provide training on how to better meet the needs of voters with disabilities.

Lawsuits challenge Arizona’s new proof of citizenship requirement. On Tuesday, the Arizona Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander for Equity Coalition filed a lawsuit challenging two newly enacted bills, H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243, for requiring voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship – and allowing county recorders to cancel a voter’s registration if that proof is unavailable or if there is suspicion that the voter is not a U.S. citizen. Last Monday, the Democratic National Committee and Arizona Democratic Party filed a separate lawsuit challenging H.B. 2492, which was promptly consolidated with other litigation. The plaintiffs in the other new suit have moved to similarly consolidate their case with ongoing litigation.


Read More

news video camera
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

When the Cameras Went Dark: What a Press Ban Reveals About American Journalism

When I came to the United States from India in 1982, I did not trust newspapers. Back home, everyone knew which party a paper favored before reading a line. American television felt different. My family watched Peter Jennings every evening, and later I found Larry King on CNN, who let his guests talk instead of telling viewers what to think. That habit of holding everyone to one standard has mostly faded.

On Sept. 18, President Trump announced he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, saying their reporting was fake news. The next morning the Secret Service took reporters’ badges at the gate. The outlets sued on Monday, and Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS declined to take CNN’s turn in the television pool. On Sept. 24, Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed, blocked the ban for 14 days. He found the outlets likely to win on due process, because reporters got no notice and no chance to respond, and he doubted the government’s national security explanation. Trump’s answer was to call the judge “totally disloyal.”

Keep ReadingShow less
US Senate candidate Dan Osborn

Nebraska Independent US Senate candidate Dan Osborn.

Image obtained from YouTube

7 Independent Campaigns to Watch in the Final Days of the Midterms

Election Day on November 3, here are the seven independent campaigns we’ve followed closely, four for the Senate and three for the House, ranked by how competitive they are.

Fundraising figures are full-cycle totals from FEC reports, through the date noted for each race. Prediction-market odds come from Kalshi and were pulled on 10/23. Polls are pulled from the aggregated New York Times pages, with several low-quality polls highlighted by campaigns left out.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote

Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote inserted into a grey cardboard ballot box slot.

Getty Images

The First Amendment Does Not Belong to Political Parties

In a recent essay in Life & Liberty, Robert G. Natelson argues that open primaries may violate the First Amendment rights of political parties by allowing people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. His argument starts with the rights of the party. The more fundamental question is whether it starts in the right place at all: When a state conducts a primary election, whose rights are we even talking about?

Natelson’s answer is primarily the rights of political parties. He argues that because parties have a First Amendment right to decide with whom they associate, the government cannot require them to allow people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. He relies on a number of Supreme Court decisions involving political parties and places particular weight on National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. But in doing so, he moves too quickly past the most important fact in the debate: a state primary is an election conducted by the government, not a private meeting of a political organization.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Side view of young African American male voter filling in ballot

An opinion piece argues that America must revisit Reconstruction after the Trump era, starting with the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Pressmaster/Getty Images

Radical Reconstruction: Looking to the Past To Move Forward

The last 11 years of electoral politics have plunged our nation into new lows: withdrawal and reentry into Middle Eastern conflicts, a politicized public health response during a pandemic, an attempted coup of the American government, and continual police brutality against people of color. Donald Trump’s existence on the political stage, in office or out, has held our nation hostage through repeated crises, leading us to the most divided time in our nation since the Civil War. The path forward for our young country doesn’t just require new ideas: we need to finally follow through on Reconstruction.

A blip in American history, Abraham Lincoln’s post-Civil War vision, called Reconstruction, was the proposed path forward for Southern reentry into American life. In exchange for loyalty to the Union and some guarantees of black civil protection, Lincoln prepared to readmit secessionist states into the Union, albeit with political restraints on numerous Confederate leaders.

Keep ReadingShow less