Aggregator

The shop is also raising money for Ukraine-based charities.

Jury selection is beginning Monday morning in Clayton for a Florissant man accused of numerous sex crimes against multiple young girls. 

The American polity is dangerously divided, and people are deadly serious about politics (which isn’t irrational, since policy outcomes are indeed life or death for many). But it helps occasionally to pause and laugh at some of the dumb things candidates of both parties do. Indeed, it is one of our only common threads these […]

The post The five silliest things candidates told me during Missouri’s primary season appeared first on Missouri Independent.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has opened up millions of dollars in funding for groups serving unhoused people in rural areas — an unprecedented move by the agency, say housing advocates. People living in cars, parks, and on the street at night, which the agency labels unsheltered homelessness, has increased across the nation, […]

The post As rural homelessness increases, HUD aims money at helping people without access to shelters appeared first on Missouri Independent.

How Georgia and other Republican-led states are trying to benefit from the clean manufacturing boom.

An interview with Kate Beaton, the author of "Ducks: Two Years in the Oil Sands."

A nonprofit that endlessly boasts about its ‘inclusive culture’ decides it’s had enough of the ATL.

Thanks to ‘Dobbs,’ a majority of Americans are ready to put limits on its power.

by Aliyya Swaby and Annie Waldman

Sign up for ProPublica’s User’s Guide to Democracy, a series of personalized emails that help you understand the upcoming election, from who’s on your ballot to how to cast your vote.

This story was co-published with Gray TV/Investigate TV.

For nearly 10 hours on Georgia’s primary day, Olivia Coley-Pearson tracked down every potential voter she could find, working two cellphones as she paced the parking lot outside the polls, repeating the same message: “You need to tell all your cousins, your brothers, your sisters, your aunts, your uncles — everybody you know — to come on down here to vote.”

A third of her neighbors in Coffee County struggle to read at a basic level, and she wanted to make sure they had help navigating their ballots. In the late afternoon, she slid behind the sparkly pink steering wheel of her SUV for her final push of the day, heading down a long stretch of road where buildings gave way to fields and thickets of pine. She turned in to the Kinwood Estates mobile home park and stopped at the edge of a familiar dirt driveway just as Shondriana Jones, 30, bounded down the steps of a trailer.

“I can’t find my ID and Mama, she’s still at work,” Jones said.

Coley-Pearson has helped the family vote for years — she’s known them since she and Jones’ mother, Sabrina Fillmore, were young. Now 60, Coley-Pearson serves as a city commissioner in Douglas, the majority-Black county seat. Fillmore, 54, works at the local poultry plant cutting chickens. Neither Fillmore nor her daughter can read beyond a first-grade level, but they rarely miss an election, believing their votes can influence everything from their electricity costs to the way police treat them.

Coley-Pearson urged Jones to track down a utility bill to prove her identity at the election office just as Fillmore returned from a 10-hour shift, exhausted. With the women aboard, Coley-Pearson started the car, anxiety brewing in her mind.

Olivia Coley-Pearson (Joseph Ross, special to ProPublica)

Even though federal law guaranteed the two women the right to have someone help them vote, Coley-Pearson knew too well that this right was under attack. For all of the recent uproar over voting rights, little attention has been paid to one of the most sustained and brazen suppression campaigns in America: the effort to block help at the voting booth for people who struggle to read — a group that amounts to about 48 million Americans, or more than a fifth of the adult population. ProPublica analyzed the voter turnout in 3,000 counties and found that those with lower estimated literacy rates, on average, had lower turnout.

“How the system is set up, it disenfranchises people,” said Coley-Pearson, who blames Southern political leaders for throwing up hurdles. “It’s by design, I believe, because they want to maintain that power and that control.”

Conservative politicians have long used harsh tactics against voters who can’t read — poor, often Black and Latino Americans who have been failed by the U.S. education system and who conservatives feared would vote for liberal candidates. Some states have required voters who needed help to sign an affidavit explaining why they need assistance; some have prevented voters who couldn’t read from bringing sample ballots to the polls and limited the number of voters that a volunteer could help read a ballot. Time and again, federal courts have struck down such restrictions as illegal and unconstitutional. Inevitably, states just create more.

Over the last two years, the myth of election fraud, supercharged by former President Donald Trump in the wake of his 2020 loss, has fueled a barrage of new restrictions. While they do not all target voters who struggle to read, they make it especially challenging for voters with low literacy skills to get help casting ballots.

Last year, Georgia passed a law limiting who can return or even touch a completed absentee ballot. Florida expanded the radius around election locations in which volunteers are prohibited from asking people if they need help. Texas passed a law prohibiting voters’ assistants from answering questions or paraphrasing complicated language on the ballot; a federal judge struck down several sections of the law in June. But the court left other provisions in place, including ones that increase penalties for helping voters who don’t qualify and require people who assist voters to fill out more paperwork. Texas did not appeal the decision.

To appreciate the impact of voter suppression, consider that recent elections have been determined by a narrow sliver of the electorate:

Despite losing the popular vote, Trump secured the presidency in 2016 by winning Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by a margin of just under 80,000 total votes.

President Joe Biden prevailed in 2020 by winning Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin by just over 40,000 votes combined.

Coley-Pearson recognizes the importance of this moment for Georgia, which is no stranger to close elections. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp faces another challenge from Democrat Stacey Abrams, and Sen. Raphael Warnock is attempting to hold on to his seat in a race that could tip the Senate back to Republican control. But to Coley-Pearson, helping people vote isn’t only about politics or even just about their rights as individuals. It is about the future of democracy at a time when it seems like the views of the majority are being marginalized by the actions of the few.

The Gladys Coley resource center. Second image: A memorial plaque bearing the name of Gladys Coley. (Joseph Ross, special to ProPublica)

As a child in the 1970s, she’d watched as her mother, Gladys Coley — who stood just above 5 feet and had only an eighth grade education — rose to the helm of the local NAACP and challenged the discriminatory school system and police department. Her mother begged her not to return from college in Atlanta, but Coley-Pearson wanted to fight for the people of Coffee County, too. As she headed to the polls on primary day this past May, though, she couldn’t subdue her fear that by helping Jones and Fillmore, she was putting a target on her own back.

Over the course of several years, she’d become tangled in an investigation of supposed voter fraud, which took aim at her attempts to assist voters who requested help. She had pleaded her case to television cameras and at a hearing before the state’s highest election official. She had even wound up in jail.

“Intimidation is real,” Coley-Pearson said. “If we don’t continue to vote, they’re going to have us right back where it used to be.”

(Mauricio Rodríguez Pons/ProPublica)

Watch video ➜

Coley-Pearson was born in an era when Southern states forced convoluted literacy tests on voters to keep Black people out of the polls. In those days, local voting officials often made exceptions for white people who couldn’t read. In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act prohibiting racial discrimination at the polls. That didn’t stop white conservatives, especially in the South, from continuing to discriminate against voters with low literacy skills, who, due to centuries of oppression, were disproportionately Black.

An excerpt from a Louisiana voter literacy test that was in use around 1963. (Civil Rights Movement Archive)

Conservatives argued that removing barriers for voters who couldn’t read would allow the federal government to overrule states’ decisions on how to run local elections and would hand more votes to liberal candidates. Clearly, they said, voters with low reading skills would be easily swayed by anyone assisting them, leading to rampant fraud.

“Today the bureaucrats are issuing certificates to vote to people who cannot read the ballot nor even the instructions on a ballot or on a voting machine,” segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace declared in late 1965. “The left wing liberals need as many illiterates as they can get to vote in order to keep them in power.”

The Rev. Fred C. Bennette Jr., a civil rights movement organizer, right, instructs Black people in Atlanta how to fill out registration forms in 1963. (Horace Cort/AP Photo)

By 1981, voters of color, including those with low literacy levels, still faced “white resistance and hostility,” according to a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report. “For many minority voters, the kind of assistance that they receive at the polls determines whether they will vote,” the report stated. “If minority voters who do not speak English or who are illiterate receive inadequate assistance, they may become too frustrated and discouraged to vote or they may mark their ballots in such a way that they will not be counted.”

Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to affirm that voters who need help due to an “inability to read” could bring someone, other than their employer or union representative, to assist them in the voting booth. A string of subsequent lawsuits shows this federal action again failed to eradicate the discrimination.

In a 2001 case, the federal justice department claimed that white poll managers in Charleston County, South Carolina, were intimidating Black voters who requested assistance. According to testimony given in the case, the poll workers launched a barrage of questions at these voters, such as, “Can’t you read and write? And didn’t you just sign in? And you know how to spell your name, why can’t you just vote by yourself? And do you really need voter assistance?”

A federal judge found that there was “significant evidence of intimidation and harassment,” but said evidence of the mistreatment was too “anecdotal” to take direct action.

In 2012, the chairman of Coffee County’s board of elections filed a complaint against Coley-Pearson and three other residents, alleging that they’d assisted voters who didn’t legally qualify for help. Georgia law only allows voters to receive assistance if they are disabled or cannot read English. The secretary of state’s office, then under Kemp’s leadership, initiated an investigation.

Alvin Williams (Joseph Ross, special to ProPublica)

The following summer, a 52-year-old line cook named Alvin Williams answered his phone to find a state investigator on the other end. The man had questions about the 2012 election. “It looks like you were assisted by Olivia Pearson,” said state investigator Glenn Archie, in a recording obtained by ProPublica. (Archie did not respond to a request for comment.) “It’s not marked why she assisted you and I was wondering why you needed assistance.”

The tone of the man’s voice made Williams nervous. “Because I can’t read. I’m illiterate,” Williams told Archie. He’d dropped out of school at 16 to work full time catching chickens and selling them to the local poultry plant, a job he’d skipped classes for since he was 11 to help support his family.

“I’m sure she read the candidates to you,” Archie said. “Did you get to pick the people you wanted to vote for?”

“Yes, sir,” Williams said. “I can’t read. That’s why she was helping me.”

“That’s no problem,” the investigator assured him. “She can assist you if you have problems reading.”

But the call left Williams humiliated and fearful of how his vote could be used against him or Coley-Pearson. “I don’t fool with the law,” he said in a recent interview. “And I don’t do nothing for them to fool with me.”

Some other voters told investigators that they had requested and received help even though they could read. The investigation found that Coley-Pearson and the other volunteers neglected to verify whether some voters qualified for help and incorrectly filled out forms indicating why voters needed assistance. It also found that election workers failed to include required information on many forms and turned them in without making sure they were accurate.

Testifying at a 2016 hearing chaired by Kemp, Coley-Pearson maintained that she hadn’t broken any laws. In response to a poll worker’s claim that she’d touched the voting machine, Coley-Pearson said she’d merely accompanied voters who had requested her assistance and stood by to answer questions about the process or read names on the ballot. She said she followed the instructions of the poll workers, signing forms when directed.

“If someone asks me for help, I felt an obligation to try to assist if I could,” she testified at the hearing, stressing that she never told anyone who to vote for. Coley-Pearson suspected there was a deeper significance to the investigation and told the board, “Sometimes things are done to try to maybe dis-encourage, or whatever, other people from voting, and I don’t feel like that is fair.”

The state election board chose not to recommend her case for criminal prosecution, but a local district attorney’s office prosecuted her anyway, which made national headlines in BuzzFeed. It charged her with two felonies for improperly assisting a voter and for signing a form that gave a false reason for why a voter needed assistance. The trial ended with a hung jury. One of two Black people on the jury told a local reporter that she was the only holdout; everyone else voted to find Coley-Pearson guilty. She was tried again in a nearby county and, after about 20 minutes of deliberations, the new jury acquitted her of all charges. The district attorney’s office did not respond to ProPublica’s emailed questions.

Watch the Video On the day of Georgia’s primary elections in May, ProPublica followed Olivia Coley-Pearson to capture what it takes to ensure that voters who need help can get it. (Mauricio Rodriguez Pons/ProPublica and Zach Read for ProPublica)

Three other volunteers took plea deals in which they admitted to making false statements on forms indicating the reason that a voter needed assistance; in exchange, they got probation, after which any fines would be waived. One of them, James Curtis Hicks, said that if he had fought his case and lost, he could have faced jail time or a mountain of fines. He didn’t want to take any risks. “Around here, to me, they target the leaders, the people that are standing up for the rights of the minority,” he said in a recent interview. “To shut me and Ms. Pearson down, it would stop a whole lot of people going to the polls.”

For years, the 59-year-old truck driver had kept tabs on Coffee County voters to see if they needed help reading the ballot. But after the settlement, he stopped. “I didn’t want a focus on me to suppress anyone else,” he said. “I really felt intimidated.”

But the charges didn’t deter Coley-Pearson.

(Mauricio Rodríguez Pons/ProPublica)

Watch video ➜

Before Jones could vote that May afternoon, she needed to get temporary identification. Dodging the pouring rain, she and Coley-Pearson scuttled into the elections office shortly before it closed. At nearly 6 feet tall, Coley-Pearson towered over the woman sitting behind a plexiglass barrier.

“She needs a voter ID, sweetie,” Coley-Pearson said, leaning in. The woman handed Jones an application.

“You need me to do it, baby?” Coley-Pearson asked softly.

Jones nodded, “Yes, ma’am.”

The woman at the counter emphasized that Jones had to complete it on her own.

“She has trouble reading and writing,” Coley-Pearson said.

After a tense moment, the woman agreed that Coley-Pearson could fill out the form. She read the questions out loud and filled in Jones’ answers, pointing out which lines to sign and date.

Shondriana Jones (Joseph Ross, special to ProPublica)

Jones is in the third generation of her family that is not able to read. Her grandmother never learned how, and her mother, Fillmore, left high school in her sophomore year, after frequently being disciplined for fighting. As an adult, Fillmore briefly attended an education program to help her learn how to read, but she felt discouraged and left.

Jones graduated from high school in Coffee County but says she reads at the same first-grade level as her mother. She remembers attending special education classes with more field trips than written assignments and says teachers never diagnosed her with a learning disability or gave her one-on-one assistance. School administrators also frequently suspended her for fighting, she said. “They were trying to get rid of me.”

Coffee County has long failed to provide an equal education for students of color. In 1969, federal officials sued its school board for refusing to integrate white and Black schools. Even after the school system was integrated, Black students continued to receive fewer academic resources and harsher punishments than their white peers. A decade ago, the district acknowledged its shortcomings in reading instruction and the need to rectify its problems with literacy, which were more pronounced for Black students.

The county’s lower literacy rate is related to its high poverty rate, and since integration, the district has worked to increase opportunities for students of color, Coffee County School District Superintendent Morris Leis said in an email; he added that the district does not use discipline to “push out” children who have academic challenges, and it has reduced racial disparities in discipline after it initiated a new program in 2014. By that time, Jones had graduated.

She aspires to learn how to read through an adult education program and to eventually work at a child care center, but she cannot do so without steady transportation. She has not applied for a driver’s license; though she could take the written test orally like her mother did, she hasn’t been able to find someone who has time to help her study the examination booklet.

Ordinary tasks are often insurmountable for her. She owns a smartphone, but mining the web for information is daunting. After she fell several months behind on her electric payments, she could not read the notice that warned her lights would be cut off. She likely qualifies for low-cost internet, but she cannot navigate the instructions for accessing it. When she takes her son to the doctor’s office, she prints his first and last name on the forms but asks the staff for help with the rest. Unable to decipher her most valuable documents, like her birth certificate, she entrusts them to her aunt, who can read and helps determine what she needs for appointments and applications.

Jones worries most about keeping up with her 4-year-old son as he grows. She can read beginner books to him, but she knows his knowledge will soon surpass her own.

For Jones, the voting process itself is like a literacy test. If she changes her address, she cannot easily update her registration. If she enters the polling booth alone, she may recognize a few names on the ballot, but any unfamiliar words could confound her, particularly when it comes to the often-confusing constitutional amendments. She prefers voting by mail, which allows her more time to process her choices, but Georgia’s new election law is making that more difficult. The law has banned outside groups from mailing out absentee ballot applications that have the resident’s information already filled in, and it has limited who can submit the applications on voters’ behalf. The law does include exceptions for people helping “illiterate” voters, but experts say its limit on assistance could still discourage those voters from requesting help.

“Any law that limits assistance is going to have an impact on voters with limited literacy,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, acting director of voting rights at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Whether or not that’s the intention of the lawmakers, that’s always a difficult thing to say. But I do think sometimes it may very well be the intention.”

It is impossible to say precisely what role literacy plays in voter turnout. There are many other factors that contribute to lower participation, including some closely intertwined with literacy, such as income and education level. But to put the importance of reading ability in perspective, ProPublica analyzed data on turnout from the three most recent national elections and compared it to average estimated literacy levels for over 3,000 counties. (Read more about our analysis, and the data used, in our methodology. Watch Investigate TV’s segment about this story.) Our analysis found that if low-literacy counties had turnout similar to high-literacy counties, they could have added up to about 7 million votes to the national total for each of those three elections.

Across the country, people like Jones are stumbling through inscrutable election processes fraught with poor ballot design and rigid registration rules. Some are choosing not to vote at all. (Read more about how some states are trying to make voting more accessible.) “We know in general that the more barriers we put in front of people, the lower the participation rate,” said Donald Moynihan, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University. “Even if someone with lower literacy has the same desire to vote as someone reading this article, they have to overcome more barriers.”

In 2014, for example, Ohio legislators began requiring voters to fill out more complicated versions of absentee and provisional ballot forms while at the same time limiting the assistance they could get from poll workers. Minor errors in the paperwork could lead to people’s votes not being counted. In a lawsuit, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless claimed that the laws disproportionately harmed poor, nonwhite and low-literacy voters who would be more likely to have their ballots rejected for minor errors.

Data submitted as evidence shows that thousands of forms were tossed in the 2014 and 2015 general elections for simple problems such as incomplete addresses and birthdays. Poll workers refused one form because the street name “Cuthbert” was misspelled as “Cuthberth.” Several others were rejected because birth dates were listed as the current date, an indicator that voters may not have understood the instructions.

In 2016, a federal judge struck down the measures, concluding they disproportionately harmed Black voters. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that state rules requiring perfect completion of absentee ballot forms posed an undue burden to voters. But the panel said the other measures were minimally disruptive and left in place regulations that limited the assistance voters could get from poll workers and the amount of time voters were given to correct errors on absentee and provisional ballots.

“What the case demonstrates is the indifference of officials from one political party, and of unfortunately many federal judges, to voting rights and to the need to make voting not only secure, but relatively unburdensome,” said Subodh Chandra, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

A similar law in Georgia suspended voter registration applications when the information on the form didn’t exactly match a driver’s license or social security record. (If voters didn’t correct the information within 26 months, Georgia could cancel their registrations.) When then-Secretary of State Kemp ran for governor against Stacey Abrams in 2018, his office suspended the applications of an estimated 53,000 voters, most of them Black, due to these discrepancies. Kemp won the election by about 55,000 votes.

A federal judge ordered Georgia to ease the restrictive program, calling it a “severe burden” on some voters. Politicians, academics and advocates have accused Kemp of voter suppression not only for suspending registration applications over minor discrepancies, but also for purging tens of thousands of infrequent voters from the rolls — a more aggressive effort than is made in other states.

Kemp press secretary Katie Bryd disputed the allegations and noted that Kemp had implemented automatic voter registration through the state’s department of motor vehicles in 2016, which added hundreds of thousands of eligible voters to the rolls. “Politically driven, irresponsible accusations of voter suppression alleged at Governor Kemp have been repeatedly found void of basic facts and validity,” Byrd said in an email.

Today, voters flagged for minor discrepancies in their registration paperwork can no longer be removed from the rolls, but they do have to show a photo identification before they vote.

(Zach Read for ProPublica)

Watch video ➜

As Coley-Pearson parked at the polling station, her thoughts flew back to a similar day not long ago when she wound up handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser.

In October 2020 — more than two years after she was cleared of the felony charges — she was standing in a voting booth helping a young woman with low literacy skills read a ballot, as is allowed by law, when the county’s election supervisor, Misty Martin, confronted her. Martin yelled at Coley-Pearson to not touch the machines and told her she was barred from returning to the polls. Coley-Pearson said she wasn’t touching any machines. “We’re done,” she told the young woman after she finished voting. “Let’s go.”

Martin, who also has used the last names Hampton and Hayes, called the police to report that Coley-Pearson was disruptive, and the department issued a trespass warning barring her from the polls indefinitely. Later that morning, when Coley-Pearson returned to drop off another voter, she was arrested in the parking lot and charged with criminal trespassing. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is looking into election interference claims in Coffee County, including an incident in which Martin allowed several computer experts connected with Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 results into her offices, where they may have had access to election systems; Martin resigned from her county post under pressure last year. She did not respond to ProPublica’s questions related to either incident.

The charge hung over Coley-Pearson for nearly two years; this past June, a state judge agreed to drop the case if she signed a consent order agreeing to follow election law. “There was no evidence of any crime here,” Coley-Pearson said. “It feels like you’re fighting a losing battle.”

Her daughters see how the last several years have worn her down. AiyEsha Coley said she would sometimes wake up at 4 a.m. to feed her newborn and would find her mother on Facebook, reading through disparaging comments. Her daughters have long campaigned for her to retire from city commission, scared that the stress might eventually kill her. She’s starting to come around, and she plans to leave her post next year.

Now peering into her back seat, Coley-Pearson worried her presence could interfere with Jones and Fillmore’s ability to vote. “I did not want any type of confrontation, I did not want any kind of accusations, I just didn’t want any hassle,” she said.

She told them she would not be going in with them and instructed two close friends to help them instead. “When you get through, you all come down there to the tent,” she said, motioning to where her volunteers were sitting out of reach of the rain.

Coley-Pearson watched the women shuffle into the building and fretted as she waited, leaning on her mobile walker at the edge of the parking lot with a group of volunteer canvassers. She had reminded her friends of the rules, but she knew that sometimes, following them was not enough. “They might try to look for anything they could use against them,” she said.

After nearly an hour, Jones and her mother emerged, beaming.

Coley-Pearson’s nerves settled, at least for the moment.

One in Five Americans Struggles to Read. We Want to Understand Why.

by Asia Fields

ProPublica is a group of reporters.

We do not tell you who or what to vote for.

We want to give you information.

• Read this guide in English.
• Lea esta guía en español.
• 点击这里阅读简体中文版
• 點擊這裏閱讀繁體中文版
• Đọc bản hướng dẫn này bằng tiếng Việt.
• Basahin ang gabay na ito sa Tagalog.
• .إقرأ هذا الدليل بالعربية
• اس رہنمائی کو اردو میں پڑھیں۔
• इस गाइड को हिंदी में पढ़ें।
• এই গাইডটি বাংলায় পড়ুন।
• 이 안내서를 한국어로 읽으십시오.

Voting is a right.

You do not have to prove you can read or write to vote.

The law says you can get help with voting if you have a disability or cannot read.

We wrote a story about how some states make it hard for people to vote.

You can watch a video about our story.

We hope this guide helps you vote.

You can call the Election Protection hotline if you need help voting.

• English speakers: Call or text 866-687-8683.
• Spanish speakers: Call 888-839-8682.
• Bengali, Cantonese, Hindi, Urdu, Korean, Mandarin, Tagalog or Vietnamese speakers: Call 888-274-8683.
• Arabic speakers: Call 844-925-5287.

The Election Protection hotline will not tell you who to vote for.

Election day is November 8.

You do not have to vote on everything.

You can just vote for what matters to you.

Can I vote?

You need to be 18 years old or older.

You need to be a citizen of the United States.

You do not need to speak English.

You do not need to know how to read.

You must sign up to vote.

You may not be able to vote if a judge convicted you of a crime.

• Check to see if you can vote.

People with intellectual disabilities can vote in most states.

You may not be able to vote if you have a guardian.

In most states, only a judge can tell you that you cannot vote because of a disability.

You can get help to protect your voting rights.

How do I sign up to vote?

You have to register to vote. To register means to sign up.

• Check if you are registered to vote.
• Register to vote.

Can I vote through the mail?

You can vote through the mail if you have a disability.

Many states let all people vote through the mail.

You need to tell your state ahead of time if you want to vote through the mail.

• Sign up to vote through the mail.

Where do I go to vote in person?

• Find your polling place. Your polling place is where you go to vote.
• Check if you need to bring identification (ID) to vote.

An ID is a card or piece of paper that proves who you are. Some examples are:

• Driver’s license.
• Passport.
• Birth certificate.

Can I have someone help me vote?

The Voting Rights Act is a law.

It says some people can get help with voting.

You can have help with voting if you have a disability.

You can have help with voting if you cannot read.

You can have help with voting if you cannot write.

Who can help me?

You can ask almost anyone to help you.

These people can help you vote:

• Your child.
• A family member.
• A friend.
• A person working at your polling place.

These people cannot help you vote:

• Your boss.
• Your union representative.

How can they help me?

They can read you the ballot. The ballot lists all the people and issues you can vote for.

They can answer questions you have about voting.

They cannot tell you who to vote for.

They cannot look at your ballot unless you ask them to.

What if I do not speak or read English?

Some places have ballots in languages other than English.

• Check to see if your area has ballots in languages other than English.

They may have workers who speak languages other than English.

You can bring someone to help you translate.

If you cannot find someone to help you, call the Election Protection hotline.

What if someone tells me I can’t vote or can’t get help?

Call the Election Protection hotline if you have any problems voting.

• English speakers: Call or text 866-687-8683.
• Spanish speakers: Call 888-839-8682.
• Cantonese, Hindi, Urdu, Korean, Mandarin, Tagalog or Vietnamese speakers: Call 888-274-8683.
• Arabic speakers: Call 844-925-5287.

Some workers may not know that you are allowed to have someone help you vote.

Tell them the Voting Rights Act says you can have help.

It is a crime for someone to intimidate you.

Intimidate means they say or do things that scare you to try to stop you from voting.

We want to know if you have problems voting.

You can leave a message for ProPublica at 212-379-5781.

How do I vote in person?

You may have to wait in line to vote.

Your polling place may close while you wait in line.

If you are in line, you can vote after your polling place closes.

Let the workers know if you brought someone to help you.

The workers may ask you to sign a form.

The form says you need help to vote.

You can ask a worker to help you vote.

Some polling places use voting machines.

Some machines will read your ballot to you.

You push buttons to vote.

Ask a worker about this type of voting machine if you need one.

How do I turn in my mailed ballot?

Your ballot says how to turn it in.

You can have someone else turn in your ballot for you in most places.

Some states do not let other people turn in your ballot for you.

Find out if your state lets other people turn in your ballot.

Call the Election Protection hotline for help.

Sign up to learn how to become a more informed, more engaged citizen with ProPublica’s User’s Guide to Democracy.

You can sign up to get emails with more information about the election.

Asia Fields is an engagement reporter at ProPublica. She wrote this guide. You can send her feedback to literacy@propublica.org.

Rebecca Monteleone translated this story to make it easier to read.

Noah Jodice created the drawings in this story.

by Annie Waldman and Aliyya Swaby

Sign up for ProPublica’s User’s Guide to Democracy, a series of personalized emails that help you understand the upcoming election, from who’s on your ballot to how to cast your vote.

This story was co-published with Gray TV/Investigate TV.

One in five Americans struggles to read English at a basic level, and without the necessary reading and writing skills, everyday tasks can be insurmountable. The routine challenges of low literacy take a toll on individual livelihoods as well as this country’s collective democracy. For people who struggle to read, the electoral process can become its own form of literacy test — creating impenetrable barriers at every step, from registration to casting a ballot.

Our reporting has found that helping people with low literacy skills to read their ballots at the polls enables them to understand what and who they are voting for and ensures that their votes are counted. But decades of voter suppression — particularly in the South — have made this kind of assistance difficult to access in many communities.

We wanted to better understand the relationship between literacy and voter turnout. For decades, academic and political researchers have studied the factors that influence voter participation, including the impact of educational attainment on whether people vote. But literacy skills are less commonly featured in elections research. There are few reliable databases documenting literacy rates in the United States. But in recent years, the National Center for Education Statistics has released more granular information on literacy levels, including estimates of reading skills at the county level. Using this data, we can ask more pointed questions about how literacy skills correlate with voter participation.

Data Sources

To understand voter participation rates across the country, we acquired county-level turnout data for the 2018 midterm election and the 2016 and 2020 general elections from Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Elections. The election data comprises vote counts for more than 3,100 counties across the country. We compared the raw county vote totals with the citizen voting-age population in each county, drawn from U.S. Census Bureau estimates, for each election year. The citizen voting-age population includes all people 18 and older who are native or naturalized citizens, and the number is frequently used as a base figure in turnout calculations.

Some researchers prefer to use a different number as their denominator — the voting-eligible population, which is adjusted to remove those disenfranchised due to felony convictions, and sometimes also those ruled ineligible due to a mental disability. We chose to use a broader denominator so we could include all people who potentially could cast ballots if felony voting restrictions were lifted. Another requirement for voting in the United States is registration: All states, except for North Dakota, require eligible voters to officially register before they vote. We chose not to limit our analysis to registered voters, as the registration process can function as a major barrier for people with low literacy levels. We did not include U.S. territories, Puerto Rico or Alaska in our analysis, due to incomplete or unavailable data.

To understand variations in literacy levels across the country, we used modeled survey data from the National Center for Education Statistics, which was collected as part of the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), also known as the Survey of Adult Skills. The data includes state and county estimates of average literacy levels and is based on the results of surveys collected in 2012, 2014 and 2017. The survey assesses adults for a range of skills, including reading ability and comprehension, numeracy and digital problem-solving. It represents the most comprehensive picture of the nation’s literacy levels today. The county and state literacy estimates are produced using a statistical method called small area estimation, which, in addition to the survey results, incorporates additional covariate data, such as educational attainment and poverty figures, to allow for a better extrapolation of survey data to low-population areas.

There are limitations to using modeled, survey-based estimates to understand larger national trends. More reliable data could be derived from a survey that examined both literacy and voter participation or from a more comprehensive survey that doesn’t require external data points to bolster responses. At this time, those surveys do not exist, so the PIAAC data remains the best option for understanding variations in nationwide literacy rates. This data has regularly been used by both federal researchers and academics.

For our analysis, we compared counties with low estimated literacy rates to those where literacy was estimated to be proficient or better. We defined proficiency or nearing proficiency as people who, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, have, at a minimum, the skills to complete reading and writing tasks, such as comparing and contrasting information, paraphrasing and drawing low-level inferences. People with low literacy skills may be able to read a basic vocabulary and decipher short texts, but their reading comprehension abilities are severely limited. The National Center for Education Statistics defined adults with low literacy skills as those who tested at or below the lowest proficiency level of the national survey, or those who were unable to participate in the survey because of cognitive, physical or language barriers.

About 80% of American adults were assessed as proficient or nearing proficiency in reading, and 20% had difficulty completing literacy tasks, according to the national survey. While adults born outside the country are disproportionately represented among the lowest-skilled levels, two-thirds of adults with low reading skills were born in the United States. White and Hispanic adults constitute 70% of adults with low literacy, and Black adults were overrepresented, making up 23% of adults with low literacy while accounting for less than 13% of the total population.

Top-line Findings

If more people who live in counties with low literacy voted, especially in tight races, it could potentially sway the outcome of elections. Our analysis found that as the literacy rates in a county decline, voter participation also tends to decrease.

We plotted county-level voter turnout against the percentage of residents in each county with low estimated literacy levels, and again against the share with high estimated literacy levels, and we found inverse relationships between the two literacy groups. For the purposes of our calculations, the low literacy level was defined as the population that is at or below Level 1 in indirect literacy estimates, and high estimated literacy levels were defined as Level 3 or above. As the percentage of people with low literacy in each county increases, voter turnout tends to decrease (2016: r = -0.57, p < 0.0001; 2018: r = -0.57, p < 0.0001; 2020: r = -0.58, p < 0.0001). Conversely, as the percentage of people with higher literacy skills goes up, voter turnout increases (2016: r = 0.60, p < 0.0001; 2018: r = 0.60, p < 0.0001; 2020: r = 0.61, p < 0.0001 ). This trend appeared consistently for all three election years we analyzed: 2016, 2018 and 2020. The relationship between voter turnout and literacy levels does not appear to be a random pattern.

Counties With Lower Literacy Levels Often See Lower Voter Turnout Source: Literacy estimate data from the National Center for Education Statistics; election data from Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Elections (2016 presidential election data) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Citizen Voting-Age Population Estimate, 2016). Note: The low literacy level used in county literacy calculations is defined as the population that is at or below Level 1 in indirect literacy estimates, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Voter turnout is defined as the total number of votes in each election divided by the citizen voting-age population. (Graphic by Annie Waldman)

However, as the saying goes, correlation is not causation. While our analysis shows a valid pattern, our findings do not suggest that lower literacy rates cause lower turnout, or that higher literacy rates increase voter participation. We also do not know whether the adults who are not voting are the same adults as those with low literacy skills.

That said, there’s a robust body of research connecting educational attainment to voter turnout: “A person’s level of formal educational attainment is a very strong predictor of whether they vote in elections, especially nonpresidential elections,” said Barry Burden, a professor and the director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Recent data from the federal Current Population Survey supports this long-standing trend. Data on educational attainment and voter turnout from the 2020 Voting and Registration Supplement shows that among Americans with less than a high school diploma or its equivalent, the percentage who reported that they voted is similar to the share who said they didn’t vote. But with each additional level of educational attainment, the percentage of people reporting that they voted increases. For Americans with only a high school diploma who have not attended college, the percentage who said they voted was twice as big as the share saying they did not vote. For adults with only a bachelor’s degree, the group who said they’d voted was about nine times the size of the group that reported that they did not vote. And for adults with a master’s degree, about 17 times as many people reported voting as not voting. Given the deep link between education and turnout, the notion that literacy might have a similar connection is not unreasonable.

Some of the most consequential elections of our time have been determined by narrow margins — just tens of thousands of votes in a country of hundreds of millions of people. For example, in 2016, Donald Trump secured the presidency by winning Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan with a total margin of just under 80,000 votes. In 2018, Ron DeSantis won Florida’s gubernatorial election by about 32,000 votes. And in 2020, President Joe Biden prevailed by winning Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin by about 40,000 votes combined.

Given how relatively few people can swing an election, we wanted to consider what the impact might be of people with low literacy skills staying away from the polls. We clustered counties across the country by average literacy level, producing three equal groups of about 1,030 counties each, and calculated average turnout for low-, medium- and high-literacy counties. For example, in 2020, across the United States, counties with low literacy levels had an average voter turnout of 58.8%, and those with high literacy levels had turnout of 73.1% on average. We then applied the participation rate of high-literacy counties (73.1%) to the total population of low-literacy counties to estimate how many votes those counties might be “missing.” We found that if counties with lower literacy levels had similar participation rates to high-literacy areas, turnout could increase by up to 7 million votes nationally. Of course, we cannot predict or assume for whom any additional votes would be cast.

Caveats

The purpose of this analysis was to gain a better sense of the relationship between turnout and literacy, rather than conduct a causal or inferential analysis. There are several limitations that could affect our understanding.

For our analysis, we relied on county-level data, and as it represents groups (i.e. counties) rather than individuals, we cannot be certain that the low-literacy people in each county were the same individuals who were not voting. Thus, one reason for the correlation between literacy and turnout could be that literacy is acting as a proxy for other factors that influence participation, like lower levels of income or a lack of social capital.

While literacy may impact voter participation, there are many other reasons why some parts of the country may cast fewer ballots. People do not vote for a number of reasons, including difficulty getting time off from work and limited options for transportation to the polls. Some people may not have much interaction with voter mobilization groups and others may feel disengaged from politics. And barriers in the process, like states disenfranchising people with felony convictions, may also impede voter participation. Some of these factors may also be influenced by an individual’s ability to read.

An important limitation of the Current Population Survey is that it relies on self-reporting, and individuals’ responses about whether they voted have not been verified against official voting records. Thus, the data is susceptible to misreporting. Some research has shown that higher socioeconomic or educational attainment levels may be associated with higher misreporting, which could affect the results.

Election participation is often influenced by local policies, and the correlation between literacy and voter turnout varies by state. While the majority of states exhibit moderate to strong relationships between voter participation and literacy, in a handful of states, there are weaker connections, which presents an intriguing path for a more comprehensive future analysis. There may be state-by-state differences in voting accessibility or ballot complexity that may also have varying effects on turnout.

In addition, the literacy data has limitations. As mentioned above, the National Center for Education Statistics developed a predictive model based on the results from its skills survey and a handful of auxiliary data points from the census, used to bolster the model’s predictive precision. These data points include, but are not limited to, high school diploma rates, poverty levels, racial breakdowns, health insurance coverage and fraction of the population working service jobs. These variables might confound the literacy variable’s relationship with turnout, possibly boosting the correlation.

The literacy data for counties with fewer residents may also have greater uncertainty than the data for more populous counties. These small counties may affect the results of the analysis, particularly in analyses done at the state level in states that have numerous small counties. These small counties, with fewer than 1,500 people, represent about 2% of all 3,100 counties in the data set. To assess their influence, we resampled the data, randomly drawing new estimates for each county, and reran the analysis 1,000 times. The findings did not significantly change.

One in Five Americans Struggles to Read. We Want to Understand Why.

by Aliyya Swaby and Annie Waldman

Sign up for ProPublica’s User’s Guide to Democracy, a series of personalized emails that help you understand the upcoming election, from who’s on your ballot to how to cast your vote.

This story was co-published with Gray TV/Investigate TV.

Faye Combs used to enter the voting booth with trepidation. Unable to read until she was in her 40s, she would struggle to decipher the words on the ballot, intimidated by how quickly the people around her finished and departed. “When the election was over, I didn’t even realize what I had voted for because it was just so much reading,” she said.

Combs’ feelings of insecurity and disorientation when faced with a ballot are not unusual. Voters with low literacy skills are more likely to take what they read literally and act on each word, sometimes without considering context, literacy experts say. Distractions can more easily derail them, causing them to stop reading too soon.

“I’ve seen people try to read [the ballot] left to right and end up skipping entire contests,” said Kathryn Summers, a University of Baltimore professor who has spent decades studying how information can be made more accessible. She has found that voters who struggle to read are also more likely to make mistakes on their registration applications, such as writing their birth date incorrectly or forgetting to fill in the check box that indicates they are a citizen, either of which could lead to their vote being rejected.

As a ProPublica investigation found, today’s election system remains a modern-day literacy test — a convoluted obstacle course for people who struggle to read. Though many people may require assistance with registration or at the ballot box, some counties and states have made it more challenging to secure help.

Experts say that redesigning both the registration and election processes to be more accessible will allow more people to vote without assistance and participate more robustly in democracy. Ballots and forms should be simply written and logically laid out, jargon should be stripped from instructions and ballot amendments and, if possible, new forms should be tested on a diverse group of constituents.

Such reforms can be expensive and time-consuming, which stops some states and municipalities from taking on the task, said Dana Chisnell, who co-founded the nonprofit Center for Civic Design to help states and counties develop accessible voter materials. “They may have old voting systems that they’re holding together with duct tape and baling twine because they can’t afford to replace them or there were other priorities in the county,” she said.

But numerous examples show that when such changes are made, more votes get counted. “If we make it better for people with low literacy, it will actually be better for everyone,” Summers said.

Improving Ballot Design

As ProPublica has written, bad ballot design can sabotage up to hundreds of thousands of votes each election year. After the confusing butterfly ballot infamously wreaked havoc in the 2000 presidential election in Florida, the federal government increased its oversight and regulation of local election administration, including by issuing voluntary guidelines for how ballots and election materials should look. But states and counties continue to wind up with miscast or uncast votes as a result of design failures.

In 2018, for example, Florida’s Broward County used a ballot where the names of Senate candidates were listed at the bottom of a column, under a long list of instructions.

In most of the state, where other ballot designs were used, the Senate race drew about the same number of votes as the governor’s race. But in Broward County, a Democratic stronghold, fewer people voted for Senate than for governor, which was the race listed at the top of the second column. It’s likely that many people simply missed the Senate race at the bottom of the page. This discrepancy amounted to around 25,000 votes that were never cast. Republican Rick Scott won the race by about 10,000 votes.

Improving design has resulted in fewer skipped races and rejected ballots. The Center for Civic Design has created free online guides for designing accessible forms, which are intended to help local election officials short on resources.

If the essence of democracy is making sure that everyone who is eligible can vote, the election process should lean toward inclusion and accessibility, said Whitney Quesenbery, co-founder and executive director of the center. “Someone who has decided to vote ought to have a fair shot at getting their ballot counted,” she said. “The way you make sure that it gets honored is by telling people what they have to do in a clear way.”

Accessibility experts like Quesenbery say that these changes can improve the voting process for everyone, but especially for voters with limited reading abilities.

In 2010, New York voters got confusing messages if they accidentally overvoted — that is, voted for too many candidates — using machines made by two companies, Election Systems and Software and Dominion. The electronic screen on ES&S machines featured a red button saying “Don’t Cast — Return Ballot” and a green button saying “Accept.” Similarly, the Dominion machines featured a red button labeled “Return” and a green button labeled “Cast.” It was unclear which button would actually allow voters to fix the problem and many pressed the green button, which submitted their incorrectly filled-out ballot and meant that their vote was not counted at all.

As a result of a lawsuit that the Brennan Center for Justice and other groups filed against New York election officials, ES&S changed the messages on its buttons before the 2012 election, but Dominion did not get final permission for similar changes in time. The new buttons on ES&S machines gave voters the option to either “correct your ballot” or “cast your ballot with mistakes” — a much easier choice to understand than the previous options. That election year, rates of overvoting declined on both machines, but ES&S machines saw twice as big a drop as Dominion machines.

ES&S spokesperson Katina Granger said the accessibility changes for that election show “the need to continually obtain real world feedback from both customers and usability experts.” Dominion did not respond to ProPublica’s emailed questions.

ES&S changed its message to be less confusing for voters who accidentally selected too many candidates. (Brennan Center for Justice)

In advance of the 2014 election, Florida’s Escambia County redesigned its absentee ballot forms to format instructions as a checklist on the outside of the envelope, add simple illustrations and place a colored highlight over the spot where voters were supposed to sign. Many states, including Florida, require absentee ballots to be rejected if a signature is missing or doesn’t match other records. The new design’s emphasis on providing a signature reduced the share of ballots that were missing a signature by 42% between 2014 and 2016, and reduced by 53% the share of ballots that were rejected even after voters were offered a chance to add their signatures.

The new ballot envelope being used in Florida’s Escambia County prompts voters to include a signature and date. (Center for Civic Design)

Similarly, New York redesigned its statewide absentee ballot template in 2020. The number of rejected absentee ballots in New York City decreased from around 22% in that year’s primary to just 4% by the general election.

New York’s newly redesigned ballot envelope more clearly marks where voters should sign. (Gotham Gazette) Fixing Voter Registration

Many states have redesigned their voter registration forms, making the very first step in the election process more accessible for voters with low literacy skills. In 2015, when Pennsylvania launched online voter registration for the first time, state elections officials worked with the Center for Civic Design to test early versions with residents of the state. Their input helped officials design final versions of both online and paper forms with simplified language and minimal text on the page. The sections on the paper application are more clearly defined, with the instructions on the left and the voter tasks on the right. Pennsylvania noticed a decrease in rejected voter registration forms since the launch of the new forms, according to Department of State spokesperson Grace Griffaton, but could not separate the effect of the simpler design from the launch of online registration.

Pennsylvania’s newly redesigned paper application features simpler language and minimal text on the page, compared to the previous version. (Pennsylvania Department of State)

States like Colorado, Vermont and New York have created similar designs.

This year, Vermont debuted its new online registration form, completed with assistance from the Center for Civic Design, according to Secretary of State Jim Condos. Election workers had struggled to read voters’ handwriting on the previous form, which featured cramped spaces where residents had to fill in their information. The new form is much easier to fill out and read. “It’s really about making sure the language is simple enough but to the point,” Condos said.

Vermont updated its voter registration form to include simpler language and more room for voters to write in. (Vermont Secretary of State) Learning From Other Countries

The United States has some of the lowest voter registration and turnout rates among its international peers. It also stands out for its relatively burdensome voting process. Many experts believe these two things are related.

Other industrialized countries with comparable or even lower literacy rates to the United States tend to have higher levels of voter turnout. One simple reason for their increased participation is that they make it easier to vote. Most of them have some form of compulsory or automatic voter registration in place, according to research from the Pew Research Center and the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. Countries allow citizens to vote on Election Day without having to actively sign up beforehand, or they automatically register citizens who interact with government organizations, like motor vehicle departments or social service agencies. Other countries, like Australia, have gone further and made voting mandatory, and citizens who do not cast ballots may be subject to penalties.

Turnout Is Lower in the U.S. Than in Other Countries With Similar Literacy Scores The voting rate was calculated as the average turnout as a percentage of the voting-age population in each country’s two most recent presidential or parliamentary elections. Voting data was obtained from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the U.S. Census Bureau and Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Elections. Literacy data obtained from OECD Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies. Data was not available for all countries. (Lucas Waldron, ProPublica) Turnout Is Lower in the U.S. Than in Other Countries With Similar Literacy Scores The voting rate was calculated as the average turnout as a percentage of the voting-age population in each country’s two most recent presidential or parliamentary elections. Voting data was obtained from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the U.S. Census Bureau and Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Elections. Literacy data obtained from OECD Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies. Data was not available for all countries. (Lucas Waldron, ProPublica)

In nations with automatic registration programs in place, the percentage of people who are signed up to vote is substantially higher than in the United States, where only 67% of the voting-age population is registered. By comparison, in Canada, 93% of the voting-age population is registered to vote, and similarly, that number is 94% in Sweden and 99% in Slovakia, according to Pew. In the United Kingdom, where government officials seek out voters every year through nationwide canvassing, the registration rate is 92%.

Barry Burden, a professor and the director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, believes that in the United States, the registration step “is probably more of a deterrent to voter participation than we realize,” he said. “It’s a little challenging for most voters, but if a person doesn’t have the literacy skills or language skills to navigate that bureaucratic process, it could be a deterrent to even getting registered or getting a ballot in the first place.”

The United States is starting to shift its registration policies. Some states have initiated automatic voter registration programs, which use information from other government agencies to complete registration electronically unless people opt out. Since 2015, at least 15 states and Washington, D.C., have launched automatic registration programs, and the impact has been extraordinary — with new systems in place, registrations increased by 16% in Oregon, 27% in California and 94% in Georgia.

Allowing people to register on the same day they vote could increase participation, too. Voters who made errors earlier in the process would have another opportunity to register or fill out their ballots alongside election officials who could ensure their accuracy. As of 2012, states with same-day registration had, on average, 10% higher turnout than states without, according to the Center for American Progress.

Empowering Voters

Combs, who is now 78, no longer feels intimidated in the voting booth. She understands that there are many people like her, who have figured out ways to navigate the world without being able to read well enough to handle routine civic duties like voting.

At the age of 7, Combs was sexually abused by a stranger, a trauma that shadowed her childhood, she said, making it harder for her to remember the lessons she had learned in school. She pressured classmates for the answers to homework and exams, and her teachers passed her on from grade to grade. When she graduated from high school in Bakersfield, California, she said, she left with the secret that she couldn’t read. She was too ashamed to tell her husband until seven years into their marriage. She often brought him into the polling booth because she didn’t even know where to sign her name on the election forms.

Working as a manager of Berkeley’s Meals on Wheels program, Combs thought she was hiding her inability to read from her coworkers — until one day her secretary left a flyer on her desk about a local literacy program. She began learning with a tutor, strengthening both her ability to read and her desire to be more politically engaged. Since then, Combs has made it her mission to empower people to learn how to read and participate in democracy.

She now works with the Key to Community Project, which guides struggling readers through the voting process, helping them develop skills to research candidates and understand how elections work. The nonpartisan project, led by people who learned to read as adults, is an extension of California Library Literacy Services, the country’s first statewide library-based literacy program. Literacy advocates argue that states should contribute more to adult education in order to increase workforce skills and democratic participation. Combs counsels participants in the California program not to worry about taking as much time as they need to understand the ballot.

“I know what the shame is, but you have to move beyond that shame,” Combs said. “That attitude about ‘My vote doesn’t count’ needs to be banished.”

One in Five Americans Struggles to Read. We Want to Understand Why.

Asia Fields contributed reporting.

‘If part of the theory of adding an income cap was to make this more progressive, the real-world impact was to make it more regressive.’

Lis Smith is the author of the best-selling book "Any Given Tuesday: A Political Love Story." Much of it talks about her life and career around political communications work, including her tenure with Pete Buttigieg's presidential campaign. But she also spent time in Missouri working for Democratic heavyweights like Claire McCaskill and Chris Koster. Smith spoke extensively with St. Louis Public Radio's Jason Rosenbaum about her time in the Show Me State — and other major points in the best-selling book.

Dwayne Hines of Fairview Heights, IL joined the Real Rock Army today

Source

LGBTQIA+ communities have been contributing to St. Louis’s history for centuries. Now the Gateway to Pride virtual exhibit will begin to uncover the rarely-shared or

The post Gateway to Pride Exhibit appeared first on Explore St. Louis.

Wealthier neighborhoods in St. Louis have armed themselves with private police, giving them a level of service poor areas can’t afford and fueling racial and economic disparities.

Hayes was selected to be one of nine rookies to cheer on America's team this season.