Christie now argues that he opposes in-person early voting because it "increase[s] the opportunities for fraud." He offers no evidence to back that assertion, however, probably because there's none available.
There are many competitions in our society, in our country, and in our world. Children, adults, colleges, corporations, etc. are constantly striving to be ranked at the top.
The truth is that the GOP knows it can't push its extreme, out-of-touch agenda on a country where every voice is heard. They know they have to do everything they can to silence the voices of everyday Americans because it's the only way they'll keep winning elections.
I have said that the central issue for the 2016 presidential contest is the restoration and protection of voting rights. It is therefore fitting that Hillary Rodham Clinton, the leading contender for the Democratic Party's nomination for president in 2016, made voting rights the centerpiece of a speech at a major campaign stop in Houston today.
The same conservatives who succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to gut the Voting Rights Act last year are now attacking the principle of one person, one vote. The purpose of both maneuvers is the same, to help Republicans win elections by diluting or suppressing Democratic votes, in particular the votes of black and brown people.
What's more common sense than making voting more accessible while reducing opportunity for fraud, all while reducing taxpayer costs?
Showing off his trademark bow tie (and famously polite demeanor), retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens this week again ripped into the Citizens United decision but disagreed with presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that overturning it should be a litmus test for a President when choosing Supreme Court nominees.
Across the country, conservatives in particular have debated fiercely whether to pursue voter suppression to remain competitive in an increasingly diverse electorate.
The class bias in turnout affects the economic liberalism of the state legislature. Specifically, when class bias is low, the liberal opinions of the public translate into liberal policy. But when class bias is high, liberal public opinion has no effect on policy.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch at long last won the first round of battle with the GOP with her confirmation. But it's only the first round. There are three reasons for their continuing war on her.
We are at a crossroads. The Republican budget seeks to destroy the legislative legacy of 1965 that made great differences in the lives of so many ordinary people. Democrats must defend our proud legacy and fight against the efforts of those who seek to devalue the worth of hardworking Americans.
I believe that one of the most effective actions Obama could take in advancing D.C. voting rights would be to publicly reiterate his support for D.C. statehood, this time while the 114th Congress is in session.
Highly educated women may be only a sliver of the American electorate, but they could hold the presidency in the palm of their hands. Instead of seeking to please "the soccer moms" or the "Reagan democrats," candidates should try to win over the "Smart Alices." Here's why.
Changing election districts and rules in cities, towns, and counties without input from the residents subverts democracy. Instead, we need leaders who will stand up for free and fair elections and create innovative policies to bring even more people into the democratic process.
We are a long way from justice and this case will have to work its way through the prosecutor, jury selection and trial, but just the contrast of this tragic incident and that of Garner's death and others is remarkable.
Efforts to reverse those changes -- masquerading as "religious freedom," "pro-life," and "voter fraud" laws -- are rampant, but if public opinion polls are any guide, the rising demographic of young and diverse Americans will pose an increasingly powerful counterforce to reactionary politicians.