ST. LOUIS, Mo. -- City elections in St. Louis will change next year after residents approved a nonpartisan primary system in what's known as "approval voting."
Supporters say having cities in Middle America get on board helps with broader reform efforts.
The new system allows voters to choose as many candidates as they want during the primaries, allowing the two top vote-getters to advance.
The idea is to elect someone who garnered the widest support. Approval voting averts the cost and complexities of associated with "ranked-choice" voting. Earlier this year, Fargo, North Dakota, became the first U.S. city to enact the practice.
Chris Raleigh, director of campaigns and advocacy at the Center for Election Science, said voting reforms get heavy focus in coastal areas, so having heartland residents endorse this approach is a big deal.
"They're sick of bad elections and bad government like everybody else," Raleigh contended.
Skeptics of approval voting say voters still will be tempted to use ballot strategy by second guessing adding other choices so they don't harm their preferred candidate.
But the Center cautioned no system can fully guarantee a majority winner when there are more than two candidates. Meanwhile, Raleigh added he hopes to see the movement gain momentum in states such as Colorado.
In St. Louis, some African-American groups worry approval voting will harm the Democratic Party, which has seen heavy success in local elections.
But Jamala Rogers, executive director of the Organization for Black Struggle, said the party hasn't always produced a candidate who has a backing of the majority of residents, including marginalized voters.
"As part of Prop D education, people found out that three out of five voters often preferred a different candidate," Rogers observed. "To me, that's a huge disenfranchising piece of statistic."
Rogers explained she hopes the process can help create more educated voters who will know more about the candidates they are choosing.
The new approach will be used in the March primary next spring.
Disclosure: Center for Election Science contributes to our fund for reporting on Campaign Finance Reform/Money in Politics, Civic Engagement, and Civil Rights. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A University of Nevada-Las Vegas law professor said the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has issued major decisions dramatically changing the country's legal landscape.
David Orentlicher said the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and its constitutional right to an abortion two years ago was a pivotal moment in history. Former President Donald Trump has taken credit for placing three conservative justices on the court, which helped delegate the issue of abortion to states.
Orentlicher noted it is unknown how many appointments a president may be dealt, which can be unsettling.
"It is unpredictable which is a reason why one common reform proposal is to say, instead of having justices serve for life, have them serve 18 years and every two years," Orentlicher outlined. "One justice's term will expire so we'll know that every president will get two appointments."
He pointed out looking at today's voter's political ideals, the court should ideally reflect a closer 50-50 split. And while some have made the case for Supreme Court reform initiatives to bring more balance, the initiatives have not advanced. Republicans in Congress argued the changes would jeopardize the separation of powers between Congress and the Court.
Sarah Harris, deputy communications director for Stand Up America, said the winner of the November election could reshape legal precedent in the U.S. for generations. Her group conducted a survey and reported nearly 75% of voters said the selection and confirmation of future justices will be important when deciding who to support in the upcoming races.
"It's important to think about generations after us, because many of the people who could potentially be put on the bench will be on there for 50 to 60 years, potentially," Harris emphasized. "Justices continue to be appointed younger and younger."
Harris added four of the current justices on the bench will be in their 70s in 2025 when the next president takes office. The next president could have the opportunity to potentially put two to three new justices on the bench.
Disclosure: Stand Up America contributes to our fund for reporting on Campaign Finance Reform/Money in Pol, Civic Engagement, and Civil Rights. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Former President Donald Trump has taken credit for placing three conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Monday, the court awarded him a major win by giving him immunity from criminal prosecution for what are known as "official acts" taken while in office.
New data show a majority of voters in Arizona and around the country are paying attention and understand the impact the next president could have on the future of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sarah Harris, deputy communications director for Stand Up America, said the winner of the November election could select and appoint up to four new justices, reshaping the legal precedent in the U.S. for years to come.
"It's important to think about generations after us," said Harris. "Many of the people who could potentially be put on the bench will be on there for 50 to 60 years, potentially as justices continue to be appointed younger and younger."
Harris noted four of the current justices will be in their 70s in 2025 when the next president takes office. Her organization's recent poll finds nearly 75% of voters say the selection and confirmation of future justices will be important when deciding who to support in the upcoming presidential and Senate races.
Some argue the scandal-ridden Supreme Court makes the case for term limits. The Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, led by U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, would create 18-year term limits for current and future justices as well as provide two appointments to the court in each four-year presidential term.
Harris said the justices should not be treated as if they're above the law.
"No one deserves power for life. What we've seen is that the court cannot regulate itself, and so having term limits would be really, really important," she continued.
The TERM Act was initially introduced in 2022, but died in committee. It was reintroduced last year, with no action since. But that proposal, and other Supreme Court reform initiatives, have faced pushback from Republicans who argue it would jeopardize the separation of powers between Congress and the court.
Disclosure: Stand Up America contributes to our fund for reporting on Campaign Finance Reform/Money in Pol, Civic Engagement, Civil Rights. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Voting rights advocates say turnout for Nevada's June primary election was low overall but those who did vote did so mostly by mail.
Just over 383,000 voters participated, with 65% voting by mail.
Priscella Gomez, democracy manager for Silver State Voices, said it is worth noting despite Nevada's most populous counties -- Clark and Washoe -- seeing 63% and 70% voter turnout by mail respectively, other more rural counties, like Douglas, have seen a substantial increase.
"We noticed that in 2022, vote-by-mail in Douglas County had the highest and they remain the highest for 2024, which was 79% in Douglas," Gomez reported. "It's interesting to see that county is continuously increasing."
Gomez explained Nevadans have become more familiar with the vote-by-mail system. The state first transitioned to universal mail ballots in 2020 as a response to the pandemic, a change made permanent in 2021. Ballots postmarked on or before Election Day are counted, which has received Republican criticism for the risks they think it poses to election security.
Noé Orosco, program manager for Silver State Voices, said while mail-in voting might be on the increase in some parts of the state, it is important to highlight other Nevadans may choose to make their voices heard in other ways. Orosco recommended the data be used to ensure resources are allocated appropriately throughout the state.
"Maybe it's a dropbox location rather than through the mail," Noé Orosco, program manager for Silver State Voices, suggested. "There's just a variety of ways that Nevadans can exercise that right, and I think this information just shows that we need to be very mindful of that, or we, the state, need to be very mindful of that."
Data show about 17% of those who voted in the Nevada primary did so in person during early voting. Close to 18% showed up on Election Day. Voting rights advocates said what is most important is making your voice heard. They said each county registrar is doing their job to ensure voting is secure and accurate.
Disclosure: Silver State Voices contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy & Priorities, Civic Engagement, Health Issues, Human Rights/Racial Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email