A coalition of voting rights advocates in Nevada is voicing its opposition to Question 7 on this year's ballot, which would require Nevadans to present a government-issued photo ID before voting in person.

If passed, it would also require voters using mail-in ballots to list the last four digits of their driver's license or Social Security number, or a county clerk registered number. Supporters said it will help restore Nevadans' faith in the electoral process.

Athar Haseebullah, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, countered elections are already safe, secure and fair, and thinks Question 7 is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

"Stringent voter ID requirements nationwide have created a greater risk of voter suppression than they have of potentially addressing voter fraud, which is nonexistent," Haseebullah contended.

The Brennan Center for Justice found most reported incidents of voter fraud are "traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors." Proponents argued it is about ensuring only eligible individuals vote. If it passes in November, Question 7 would be placed on the 2026 General Election ballot for a final vote.

Kerry Durmick, Nevada state director for the group All Voting is Local Action, pointed out Nevada already has an efficient election system and there are already ID requirements in the voter registration process. Durmick called Question 7 a "modern-day poll tax."

"Obtaining an ID can actually cost a voter up to $100, through child care costs, transportation costs and ID costs," Durmick outlined. "The state would have to spend millions of dollars to avoid a modern-day poll tax."

In 2022, neighboring Arizona rejected a ballot measure, which would have required voters to include information like birth date and voter identification numbers when voting by mail. Critics of the proposal said it would have limited the ability of those who do not have a state, tribal or federal government-issued ID to present documents, like utility bills, to vote.

Prison policy advocates are urging West Virginia lawmakers to put an end to "prison gerrymandering," which they said distorts political representation in districts with correctional facilities.

The problem stems from a Census Bureau practice of counting people in prison as part of the district where they are incarcerated rather than in their home district.

Mike Wessler, communications director for the Prison Policy Initiative, said state officials need to take action to change the policy before the 2030 Census.

"It gives communities that have prisons a much louder voice in government," Wessler explained. "It's taking a little bit of political power from just about everyone and giving it to a handful of communities that are benefiting overwhelmingly."

Wessler pointed out some areas, such as District 83 in Preston County, count as much as 18% of their population from correctional facilities, leading to unequal political power. He noted other states have successfully passed legislation to resolve the problem.

Wessler stressed the problem also affects local governments when they draw county or city voting districts based on the skewed Census results. He added in Charleston, certain wards have inflated populations due to the presence of nearby correctional facilities.

"Changing how incarcerated people are counted wouldn't actually change anything else in state policy," Wessler emphasized. "If West Virginia ended prison gerrymandering, it would make sure that people have an equal say in government regardless of their proximity to a prison."

He underscored the practice disproportionately affects Black residents, who are incarcerated at higher rates, resulting in their voices being silenced in their home legislative districts.


get more stories like this via email

A new lawsuit is challenging Maryland's closed primary system. If the lawsuit is successful, nearly a million Marylanders may be able to vote in upcoming primaries.

Unaffiliated voters signed up as neither a Republican nor Democrat when they registered to vote, but in Maryland, that means they can't vote in primary elections.

Jeremy Gruber, senior vice president of the Open Primaries Education Fund and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said states must expand primary election access to independents because the vast majority of general elections aren't competitive.

"This lawsuit is meant to address a situation where publicly funded and administered elections - which primaries are - are shutting out American citizens," he said. "We cannot continue to call ourselves a democracy when we allow that to continue to happen."

Supporters of closed primaries argue the system makes sure only dedicated members of a political party vote for a nominee, and they also prevent efforts from an opposing party trying to influence another party's nomination process. Maryland is one of 15 states with closed primaries.

In recent years, Colorado, Alaska and New Mexico have all changed their primary process. Gruber argued that if the government is going to run primary elections, then it must ensure all people are allowed to participate. He said closed primary systems are a voting-rights issue.

"Maryland is well behind the rest of the country in recognizing and empowering independent voters," he said. "This is a voting-rights issue that has to be addressed in Maryland. When a million voters can't vote, that is a crisis."

In 2024, 17.6 million voters were barred from voting in primaries because of their unaffiliated or independent status on voter rolls. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, average voter turnout was nearly 20% higher in open primary states compared with closed primary states.


get more stories like this via email

The weekend assassination of Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman is seen by many as a setback in recruiting future civic leaders who seek out bipartisanship.

One organization doing this work said it is still possible. Hortman was often credited for a being a fierce advocate for causes aligned with her supporters but also for striking compromises serving as House Speaker in the State Legislature.

Jake Loesch, executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Citizens League, said training people how to work with elected officials from the "other side" is a key part of their programming. He acknowledged it might be hard for the public to see but there are moments where good faith bargaining wins the day.

"There are always good, bipartisan things that come out of any legislative session here in Minnesota," Loesch pointed out. "I think unfortunately, that doesn't always attract the news headlines."

Loesch's organization has a new program prompting state lawmakers to visit legislators from another party in their home community. He explained it makes it easier for them to see each other as humans, not the enemy. Loesch admitted the political system is still built around a "winner take all" approach, which often rewards partisan fights.

Loesch added if lawmakers can learn more about each other's backgrounds, a better understanding could hopefully rub off on voters and diminish the thirst for hateful rhetoric. He cautioned progress will not happen right away.

"We didn't get here overnight and it's going to take a long time to find a better level of collaboration and political understanding, and to stop attacking the other," Loesch emphasized. "There are lots of forces working against that."

He cited the overlap with social media as one such force. Meanwhile, political researchers noted besides Minnesota and a handful of other states, most legislatures in the U.S. have one-party control -- some since the mid-1990s -- making it difficult for lawmakers to gain compromise skills.


get more stories like this via email