Coming off a string of controversial opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a case tied to oversight of federal elections. That has pro-democracy groups worried.

The case stems from North Carolina, where Republicans want a ruling from that state's high court tossed out. It had to do with a map of political boundaries drawn by the GOP that opponents say was gerrymandered.

Annastacia Belladonna-Carrera - executive director of the non-partisan Common Cause Minnesota - said even though that case involves redistricting, there are broader implications as these Republicans seek to diminish the role of state constitutions in elections.

"Mail-in ballot deadlines can be impacted," said Belladonna-Carrera. "Election schedules and processes are impacted by this."

She said while Minnesota has enjoyed strong voter-access policies, along with high turnout in elections, there are some conservative lawmakers here who have pushed for restrictive laws.

The current balance of power in state government has prevented such proposals from advancing.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs say the Constitution's elections clause bolsters their argument.

Belladonna-Carrera said Minnesota might not align with other states where "bad-actors" have tried to influence election procedures. But she said she feels a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would produce more chatter here and elsewhere about testing the so-called "independent state legislature" theory.

"I think that what we're seeing is part of a broader attack on an inclusive democracy, right?" said Belladonna-Carrera. "It's part of that power grab that has devastating consequences."

To counteract that, she said Minnesota has an extensive non-partisan movement to spur voter engagement and showcase fair elections. Arguments in the Supreme Court case are expected in October.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Final action is expected soon on a plan that would prevent North Dakota cities and counties from using alternative voting methods for local elections.

Both chambers of the Legislature have approved a bill that focuses on two options - ranked-choice voting and approval voting.

In recent election cycles, Fargo has used approval voting when local candidates appear on the ballot. It became the first U.S. city to do so, after residents showed support for the idea.

Bismarck resident Andrew Alexis Varvel testified against banning these options.

"The rest of the state does not need to follow everything that Fargo does," said Varvel, "but we do need to have a certain amount of respect for what people at the local level decide."

Other bill opponents also said they don't want the state micromanaging local elections.

The Fargo-endorsed option, approval voting, allows voters to choose more than one candidate. Backers say it reduces polarization by prompting candidates to appeal to more people.

But some lawmakers believe these approaches are ineffective, and want the whole state to use the same voting method.

Gov. Kelly Armstrong hasn't indicated whether he'll sign the bill when it reaches his desk.

North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe supports the proposed ban on alternative voting methods.

In his testimony, he noted that Fargo's use of approval voting hasn't created any issues, but he said he worries other cities will follow suit.

"Multiple election methods implemented across the state," said Howe, "would have an impact on the administration of a statewide election."

But a Fargo City Commissioner argues that across North Dakota, there are already many variations - including at-large candidates.

A similar proposed ban was vetoed by former Gov. Doug Burgum two years ago.




get more stories like this via email

A number of lawsuits have been filed in opposition to President Donald Trump's executive order which could reshape how U.S. elections are run and the League of Women Voters of Arizona is one of the groups fighting back.

Pinny Sheoran, president of the group, said democracy is not just on the line, it is actively being broken. Trump's executive order would usher in new requirements, such as having voters provide in-person documentary proof of citizenship and identity. Sheoran called the president's action unconstitutional and illegal.

"Even the states serving as a buttress against the breaking of democracy is greatly under threat, in Arizona, specifically," Sheoran stated.

The White House has defended the president's executive order and called the measures "common sense," and all objections "insane." But Sheoran contends the executive order will suppress voters and enact "unnecessary hoops," making it harder for Arizonans to make their voices heard.

Sheoran argued the directive from the White House will disproportionately affect Arizonans across the board, including people of color, those in rural communities, those with disabilities and women.

She pointed out more than 1.5 million women in the state have changed their last name after marriage, which means many will not have a birth certificate matching their legal identity. Nationwide, the issue grows exponentially.

"For those 61-plus million women, we are talking about many of them, (a) not having a passport; (b) having to now prove why their ID has got a different name than the ID that they registered in," Sheoran outlined.

Sheoran stressed the importance of highlighting the narrative of how the "disastrous" order will affect everyday Arizonans.

"What makes sense to the general public, to the women who don't watch Fox News or MSNBC, is, 'Oh, I can't vote with my voter ID?' 'What, I've been voting, I am 70 years old, I've been voting for almost 50 years, and now you're telling me I can't vote?'" Sheoran underscored. "Think about those conversations."

Pro-worker and pro-democracy organizers and activists in Nevada are coming together to oppose some of the policies of President Donald Trump, Elon Musk and the current administration.

The Hands Off! protest set for Saturday in Carson City is one of more than 1,000 taking place around the country.

Kimberly Carden, a leader of Indivisible Northern Nevada, said the national protest will be the largest single day of action since Trump took office for a second term. Carden said they'll be advocating for strengthening programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and they'll demand an end to federal worker layoffs and attacks on immigrants and transgender people.

"We aren't scared, we aren't going to be intimidated, and this is a big movement," she said, "and it's going to help our elected representatives buck up and fight back."

Carden said it's all about calling out attacks on democratic principles that affect everyone, regardless of political values and beliefs. The protest comes after an eventful week in the nation's capital - including enacting a range of tariffs on goods from foreign countries that are expected to increase prices.

A new survey finds Trump's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point so far.

The "Hands Off" event starts at noon outside the Legislative Building.

Lois Stokes, a member of the group Bans Off Our Bodies, said she's astonished by the number of people now unemployed because of federal mass firings. As a former statistician with the state who worked on employment and wage data, Stokes said she thinks the situation is particularly dire in Nevada.

"Getting rid of the federal maintenance workers that handle these old buildings - and well, even the new ones," she said. "The people that are monitoring our water quality, they've been fired. Who's looking out for those interests?"

Stokes said she hopes this weekend's event serves to remind folks they have a voice and power.

"For too long, we've let things like this slide," she said, "or, 'Oh well, that's too bad - maybe next time, you know, we'll vote someone in' - and I am really hoping it's a wake-up call."


get more stories like this via email