June, 04 2020, 12:00am EDT
New Report Condemns Age Discrimination in Voting at Home Across Seven States as Unconstitutional
Today, a coalition of democracy advocacy organizations and constitutional scholars released a comprehensive report titled "Age Discrimination In Voting At Home." It argues that laws in seven states--Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas--that provide no-excuse vote-at-home options only to elderly voters violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.
WASHINGTON
Today, a coalition of democracy advocacy organizations and constitutional scholars released a comprehensive report titled "Age Discrimination In Voting At Home." It argues that laws in seven states--Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas--that provide no-excuse vote-at-home options only to elderly voters violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. It also questions the constitutionality of a bill likely to become law in Missouri that expands vote-at-home options in 2020 but explicitly makes it easier for those over 65 to utilize it. The authors call for immediate litigation to challenge these statutes.
The report is by a joint project of Equal Citizens, The Andrew Goodman Foundation, The UCLA Voting Rights Project, Stris & Maher, National Vote at Home Institute, and University of Kentucky law professor Joshua A. Douglas.
"The [Twenty Sixth] Amendment's history and Congress's intent show that courts will likely find these laws unconstitutional, particularly in light of new challenges presented amid the COVID-19 pandemic," the report's authors explain. "These laws use age to create two classes of voters--one with easier access to the ballot box than the other--and work to abridge the voting rights of younger voters. That practice is impermissible under the Twenty-Sixth Amendment."
This report contains novel data analysis to concretely demonstrate the harm caused by these discriminatory statutes. The authors, for example, find: "in states where voters under 65 cannot vote at home without an excuse, voters who are 65 and older comprise nearly 65% of all such ballots. But in states without these provisions, the use of at-home ballots is much more evenly distributed, as older voters make up only 39% of the votes from home in those states."
This report is made public just weeks after a federal court granted a preliminary injunction in Texas in Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott on, in part, Twenty-Sixth Amendment grounds.
Statement from Jason Harrow, Executive Director and Chief Counsel of Equal Citizens and co-author of the report: "This report reveals that there will be substantial barriers to conducting a safe, secure election this year--especially for younger voters. But the Constitution does not permit states to pick and choose who can vote easily and who cannot. The 26th Amendment prevents any age discrimination at all in the process of voting. We're thrilled to partner with this great group to spread the word and far and wide that these laws are impactful and cannot stand."
"Fifty years ago, our nation came together across partisan lines to certify that young voices were vital to the health of our democracy by ratifying the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Despite that, many states today use various tactics to suppress the youth vote. This important report uncovers blatant age discrimination in absentee voting and its impact across age cohorts. I hope it is a wake-up call that helps us fulfill the promise of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and ensure that young voices and votes are a powerful force in democracy, in part by shedding light on how laws that may appear innocuous nonetheless unconstitutionally discriminate on account of age for the youth class and beyond," says Yael Bromberg, Esq., Chief Counsel for Voting Rights at The Andrew Goodman Foundation and Twenty-Sixth Amendment expert and co-author of this report.
Statement from Professor Joshua A. Douglas of the University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law and co-author of this report: "The right to vote is the most fundamental, crucial right in our democracy. It cannot be denied or abridged--especially during a pandemic. This report explains an important development in that continued struggle as we seek to achieve a more perfect union."
Statement from Chad Dunn, co-founder and Director of Litigation of the UCLA Voting Rights Project: "Fortunately states all over the country, in a bipartisan way, are finding a way to hold democratic elections during these pandemic times. Those few states who insist on trying to pick and choose the voters they want will run right into the U.S Constitution. The 26th Amendment guarantees the right to vote be administered equally without regard to age and it remains in effect even during a national health emergency."
Statement from Matt Barreto, co-founder and Faculty Director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project: "When the 26th amendment extended the right to vote to 18 year-olds in 1971 it clearly stated that states could not discriminate against voters by age. Absentee voting systems that advantage 65 and older citizens, but require people under age 65 to jump through extra hoops are a violation of the 26th amendment. This research is important in advancing legal theories and empirical evidence that the 26th amendment can, and should be used to uphold the voting rights of all American regardless of age."
Statement from Michael Donofrio of Stris & Maher and co-author of this report: "Stris & Maher is proud to partner with this outstanding coalition of election law advocates and scholars, political scientists, and nonpartisan election security experts to help make sure every citizen can safely and freely exercise their fundamental right to vote".
Statement from Amber McReynolds, CEO, National Vote at Home Institute and Coalition: "A strong democracy depends on our collective right to vote. That right cannot be denied on the basis of age. This report is crucial in advancing and highlighting the urgent need for some states to modify their voting laws to meet the clear intent set forth by the 26th amendment and ensure every eligible voter can vote in a safe, secure, and accessible way."
LATEST NEWS
Doctors Against Genocide Rally in DC for 'Bread Not Bombs' in Gaza
"Hope is running out to save tens of thousands of children," warned one Colorado pediatrician. "When children die of starvation, they don't even cry. Their little hearts just slow down until they stop."
Apr 30, 2025
Members of the international advocacy group Doctors Against Genocide rallied outside U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday to demand that lawmakers push for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza and an end to Israel's use of starvation as a weapon of war in the besieged Palestinian enclave.
Around 20 DAG members in white lab coats held up pieces of pita and chanted, "Bread not bombs, let the children eat" during the Capitol Hill rally.
"The Israeli government's deliberate malnutrition, starvation, and attack on healthcare in Gaza has worsened and potentially portends extermination of masses of the Gaza population, particularly tens of thousands of children," said Dr. Karameh Kuemmerle, a Boston-based pediatric neurologist.
🪧 'Let the children eat!'
Doctors Against Genocide visited the US Capitol Hill to advocate for immediate action to end the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip https://t.co/aUJ9X6s4sh pic.twitter.com/RVpm2TX2Co
— Anadolu English (@anadoluagency) April 30, 2025
Last week, the United Nations World Food Program distributed the last of its remaining food aid in Gaza, where embattled residents now have no outside food source amid the Israeli blockade. DAG said Wednesday that "gastroenteritis and diarrheal diseases now run rampant due to Gazans attempting to survive on spoiled food, while others starve to death."
Palestinian officials, U.N. experts, and international human rights groups accuse Israel of perpetrating genocidal weaponized starvation in Gaza by imposing a "complete siege" that has fueled deadly malnutrition and disease among the coastal enclave's more than 2 million people, especially its children.
"When I treated Gaza children two months ago, children were already starving," Colorado pediatrician and DAG member Dr. Mohamed Kuziez said ahead of Wednesday's rally. "After 60 days of total blockade from essential nutrition and medical aid, uncounted more are dying slow, unnecessary deaths."
U.N. officials say there are nearly 3,000 truckloads of lifesaving aid, including more than 116,000 metric tons of food—enough to feed a million people for as long as four months—sitting at the Gaza border awaiting Israeli permission to enter.
"Hope is running out to save tens of thousands of children," Kuziez warned. "When children die of starvation, they don't even cry. Their little hearts just slow down until they stop."
Some of the speakers at the Capitol Hill rally hailed the resilience of Gaza's medical workers, who have suffered not only Israel's bombing and siege of hospitals and other healthcare infrastructure, but also kidnapping, torture, and apparent execution by Israeli troops.
"My Palestinian healthcare worker colleagues demonstrated something for which I have no word, because it goes beyond compassion, beyond skillful dedication, beyond courage," said Dr. Brennan Bollman, a professor of emergency medicine at Columbia University who just returned from Gaza. "They lost their family members and returned to work the following day."
"They need food, for their patients and for themselves; they need this illegal and unconscionable blockade to end," she added.
In addition to calling for an immediate cease-fire and lifting of Israel's blockade on Gaza, DAG is also demanding protection of children facing starvation, an end to U.S. bombing of Yemen, and safeguarding the U.S. Constitution and freedom of speech amid attacks on medical professionals' livelihoods.
Wednesday's rally came as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held a third day of hearings on Israel's legal obligation to "ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population."
The ICJ is currently weighing a genocide case brought against Israel by South Africa and supported by dozens of countries, either individually or as members of regional blocs.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are also fugitives from the International Criminal Court, which has ordered their arrest for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during a U.S.-backed war that has left more than 184,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and nearly all Gazans forcibly displaced, often multiple times.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Analysis Shows How GOP Attack on SNAP Could Cut Food Assistance 'From Millions' in Low-Income Households
"With economic uncertainty and the risk of recession rising, now is a particularly bad time for Congress to pursue these harmful changes," according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Apr 30, 2025
As congressional Republicans mull potentially imposing stricter work requirements for adults who rely on federal nutrition aid as part of a push to pass a GOP-backed reconciliation bill, an analysis from the progressive think tank the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released Wednesday states that such a move could take away food "from millions of people in low-income households" who are having a hard time finding steady employment or face hurdles to finding work.
The analysis is based on a proposal regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from House Agriculture Committee member Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), which, if enacted, the group estimates would translate into an estimated 6 million people being at risk of losing their food assistance.
"In total, nearly 11 million people—about 1 in 4 SNAP participants, including more than 4 million children and more than half a million adults aged 65 or older and adults with disabilities—live in households that would be at risk of losing at least some of their food assistance" under Johnson's proposed rules, according to the analysis.
Per CBPP, current SNAP rules mandate that most adults ages 18-54 without children may receive food benefits for only three months in a three-year period unless they prove they are participating in a 20-hour-per-week work program or prove they have a qualifying exemption.
Under Johnson's proposal, work requirements would apply to adults ages 18-65, and they would also be expanded to adults who have children over the age of seven. Per CBPP, Johnson's proposal would also "virtually eliminate" the ability of states to waive the three-month time limit in response to local labor market conditions, like in cases where there are insufficient jobs
According to CBPP, its report is based on analysis of "the number of participants meeting the age and other characteristics of the populations that would be newly subject to the work requirement under U.S. Department of Agriculture 2022 SNAP Household Characteristics data," as well as the number of participants potentially subject to work requirements in areas that are typically subject to the waivers mentioned above.
The House Agriculture Committee, which oversees SNAP—formerly known as food stamps—has been tasked with finding $230 billion in cuts as part of a House budget reconciliation plan. To come up with that amount, the committee would need to enact steep cuts to SNAP.
According to CBPP, most SNAP recipients who can work are already working, or are temporarily in between jobs. Per the report, U.S. Department of Agriculture data undercount the SNAP households who are working because the numbers come from SNAP's "Quality Control" sample, which gives point-in-time data about a household in a given month.
This snapshot does "not indicate whether a household had earnings before or after the sample month, nor do they show how long a household participates in SNAP."
What's more, "with economic uncertainty and the risk of recession rising, now is a particularly bad time for Congress to pursue these harmful changes," according to the authors of the analysis.
Keep ReadingShow Less
SOS: Migrants Awaiting Deportation Use Their Bodies to Cry for Help
The 31 men were nearly deported earlier this month before the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to return them to a detention facility in Texas.
Apr 30, 2025
Ten days after a U.S. Supreme Court order forced buses carrying dozens of Venezuelan migrants to an airport in Texas to immediately turn around and return them to Bluebonnet Detention Facility in the small city of Anson, 31 of the men formed the letters SOS by standing in the detention center's dirt yard.
As Reutersreported, the families of several of the men have denied that they are members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, contrary to the Trump administration's claims.
Immigration enforcement agents have detained and expelled numerous people with no criminal records, basing accusations that they're members of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 solely on the fact that they have tattoos in some cases.
After the reprieve from the Supreme Court earlier this month, with the justices ordering the government "not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this court," the migrants still face potential deportation to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center under the Alien Enemies Act.
Reuters flew a drone over Bluebonnet in recent days to capture images of the migrants, after being denied access to the facility. One flight captured the men forming the letters—the internationally used distress signal.
Reuters spoke to one of the men, 19-year-old Jeferson Escalona, after identifying him with the drone images.
He was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in January and initially sent to the U.S. migrant detention center at Guantánamo Bay before being transferred to Bluebonnet. A Department of Homeland Security official said, without providing evidence, that he was a "self-admitted" member of Tren de Aragua, but Escalona vehemently denied the claim and told Reuters he had trained to be a police officer in Venezuela before coming to the United States.
"They're making false accusations about me. I don't belong to any gang," he told Reuters, adding that he has asked to return to his home country but has been denied.
"I fear for my life here," he told the outlet. "I want to go to Venezuela."
Earlier this month in a separate decision, the Supreme Court ruled that migrants being deported under the Alien Enemies Act must be provided with due process to challenge their removal.
"Remember," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council, "the Trump administration refuses to give these men a chance to day in court, despite the Supreme Court telling them that they must give people a chance to take their case in front of a judge!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular