Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Wisconsin is latest state to spot handful of possible double voters

Wisconsin voters in 2018

The Wisconsin Elections Commission referred 43 cases of potential double voting in 2018 to prosecutors.

Darren Hauck/Getty Images

Wisconsin is now the third state in which officials have found examples of people voting in more than one state in the 2018 election. And once again, the number of alleged illegal votes represents a tiny fraction of the overall totals.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission voted this week to refer 43 cases of suspected cross-state voting to district attorneys in 19 counties for possible prosecution.

The apparent double voting was found by matching data through the Electronic Registration Information Center, a collaboration of 30 states and the District of Columbia that share voter registration data in order to keep the voter lists up to date and spot possible fraud.


Secretaries of state in Iowa and Ohio have recently announced they were forwarding cases of apparent double voting — 9 and 10, respectively — to prosecutors.

The use of these sophisticated methods of matching voters across jurisdictions has become deeply partisan in recent years.

Republican election officials have used the information to justify attempts to remove the names of a large number of voters from the rolls. (In announcing the criminal referral, Wisconsin election officials pointed out that the 43 cases accounted for just .0002 percent of the 2.7 million votes cast in November 2018.)

Democratic election officials and voting rights advocates have objected that some of the apparent matches showing people registered — and voting — in more than one place turn out to be incorrect.

That could leave some voters in a difficult situation if they discover when they go to the polls that their names have been removed from the registration list.

Election officials try to head off such situations by advising people to double check whether their voter registration is still valid well in advance of an election. Vote.org offers a one-stop location for anyone to check on their registration status.


Read More

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less