Early voting to start this week

Early voting in various states starts this week. The table below gives the schedule for early voting according to state. A majority of states do not require any excuse to allow its voters to vote early. Check your local election office for more details.


Early voting

Approx date for 2012

Reason required

Alabama Not allowed N/A N/A
Alaska Starts 15 days before election day at the Regional Elections Office October 22  Not required
Arizona Starts 26 days before election day October 11 Not required
Arkansas Starts 15 days before election day usually at the county clerk’s office October 22  Not required
California Start dates vary and are provided on the sample ballot sent by the county N/A Not required
Colorado Starts 15 days before election day October 22  Not required
Connecticut Not allowed N/A N/A
Delaware In-person absentee voting allowed N/A Valid reason required
Washington D.C Starts 15 days before election day October 22  Not required 
Florida Starts 15 days before election day October 22  Not required
Georgia Monday to Friday of week before election day October 29 – November 2 Valid reason required
Hawaii Starts two Tuesdays before election day October 23 Not required
Idaho In-person absentee voting allowed as soon as ballots available N/A Not required
Illinois Starts 15 days before election day October 22  Not required 
Indiana Starts 29 days before election day October 8 Not required
iowa Early voting starts as soon as ballots are available N/A Not required
Kansas Starts Tuesday before election day. Some counties start 20 days before election day October 30 or October 17 Not required
Kentucky Starts at least 12 days before election day October 27 Valid reason required
Louisiana Starts 14 days before election day and ends 7 days before election day October 23 – October 30 Not required
Maine Starts as soon as ballots are available N/A Not required
Maryland Starts second Saturday before election day October 27 Not required
Massachusetts Early voting using absentee ballot as soon as ballots are available N/A Valid reason required
Michigan Early voting not allowed N/A N/A
Minnesota In-person absentee voting starts 46 days before election day September 21 Valid reason required
Mississippi Not allowed N/A N/A
Missouri Not allowed N/A N/A
Montana Early voting using absentee ballot as soon as ballots are available N/A Not required
Nebraska Starts 35 days before election day October 2 Not required
Nevada Schedules vary by county N/A Not required
New Hampshire Not allowed N/A N/A
New Jersey Not allowed N/A N/A
New Mexico Starts 28 days before election day October 9 Not required
New York Early voting using absentee ballot as soon as ballots are available N/A Valid reason required
North Carolina Starts 3rd Thursday before election day. Known as One-stop absentee voting October 18 Not required
North Dakota Schedules differ according to county N/A Not required
Ohio Starts 35 days before election day October 2 Not required
Oklahoma Occurs on Monday and Friday before election day October 2 and October 5 Not required
Oregon Not allowed N/A N/A
Pennsylvania Not allowed N/A N/A
Rhode Island Not allowed N/A N/A
South Carolina Starts as soon as ballots are available N/A Valid reason required
South Dakota Early voting using absentee ballot N/A Not required
Tennessee Starts 20 days before election day October 17 Not required
Texas Starts 17 days before election day October 20 Not required
Utah Starts 14 days before election day October 23 Not required
Vermont Starts 45 days before election day September 22 Not required
Virginia Starts as soon as ballots are available N/A Valid reason required
Washington Starts 18 days before election day October 19 Valid reason required
West Virginia Starts 13 days before election day October 24 Not required
Wisconsin Absentee ballot starts as soon as ballots are available N/A Not required
Wyoming Starts 40 days before election day September 27 Not required

Update: Check out the in-person absentee voting location in VA here.

A Rocky Road Ahead

Since the United States has announced its intentions to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by 2014, leaders in the White House have been looking toward India as an ally in facing the coming strategic and military challenges in the region. For the U.S., the choice of India is an obvious one. Its growing geopolitical presence and commitment to democracy is a strong force among unstable countries, and deep economic ties with Afghanistan (last year, India gave Afghanistan almost $2 billion a year alone in economic and development aid!) all make India a prime candidate to manage postwar reconstruction. Yet what has been heralded as “a full-blown strategic partnership” in shepherding the region’s development is drastically falling short.

On one side is the growing diplomatic tension between the U.S. and India, which has forestalled bilateral commercial trades and sharply highlighted differences in priorities. To be clear, the U.S. and India have dramatically improved their relationship following the Cold War, when the U.S. sided with India’s rival, Pakistan, and India maintained economic and military relations with the Soviet Union. Since then, economic interests were better aligned, as bilateral trade has reached almost $100 billion just last year alone. Still, India is defiantly opposed to complying with U.S. demands if they were to compromise its own economic interests. In Iran, for example, the U.S. has called for sanctions against Iran’s growing nuclear capabilities, and has asked India to cease its commercial transactions with the country. But India views things differently, stating that oil and natural gas purchase from Tehran are vital to its economy. Moreover, Indian diplomats assert that it is “in India’s interest to maintain good ties with Iran, with whom it shares deep historical, cultural and religious connections.” They also believe that purchasing Iranian oil will “strengthen ties with Iran as a hedge against an uncertain future in Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal,”, and are thus reluctant to rebuke Iran’s nuclear purchases.

Differences in priorities in China are also a source of contention between Indian and U.S. lawmakers. The U.S. has made strides in containing what it perceives to be a geopolitical threat by China, due to its growing military strength and influence in Asia. Indeed, leaders in Beijing have even suspected that the U.S. is attempting to partner with India in containing China, claims that the U.S. staunchly denies. But India is not interested in upsetting China and has worked very hard in cooperating in areas of mutual interest and opportunity and believes than an alliance with the U.S. will fracture that relationship.

Finally, currency problems in India are hampering its ability to provide stable finances for Afghanistan’s reconstruction. High interest rates have destabilized India’s investment climate, forcing it to focus inward and shrink expenditures.

The future of the U.S.-India relationship will depend heavily on who wins this November. The Democratic Party will likely continue on its current trajectory, gently pushing India to open its markets for investment and to align with the U.S. The Republican Party’s foreign policy is traditionally more aggressive, and will probably reiterate demands for Indian liberalization and compliance with Iran sanctions.

Why is the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) still relevant?

Even before the XVIth Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement commenced in Tehran, there were fervent discussions and passionate discourses about the role, potency, and relevance of a movement crafted in a furnace so vehemently fueled by the Cold War. After the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR, the naysayers’ upped their ante on the prediction of doom of gloom for this still nascent movement. The experts speculated and suggested that the Movement has outlived its usefulness; it lacked clear vision; ailed from tentative and confused leadership; has achieved very little by way of tangible and palpable results, and ran parallel to the ground realities of the present world.

In keeping with these stark notional judgments of the past and present, the build-up to the Summit in Tehran was also marred by claims that the Non-Aligned Movement could be hijacked by the Syrian crisis or the nuclear standoff between Iran and the UN et cetera. There were also apprehensions that the Summit would be used as a propaganda tool for the Iran regime to cement its position domestically while it presents the successful staging of the Summit as a show of defiance and strength to all its perceived adversaries.

Accusation also floated around that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanted to use the Summit as a plank for showcasing to the world that Iran’s allies stood shoulder to shoulder with them–although reluctantly so –even as the world was on an apparent crusade to marginalize them. Supposedly, Iran also wanted to make it evident that its diplomatic machinery is in the pink of health, and that all those sanctions, bans and restriction haven’t broken Iran’s morale and spirit to achieve whatever goals it had set out for itself. Owing to these factors, the Non-Aligned Movement Summit was paraded as an exercise in futility and supporting rogue intents even before it started – and though it is too early to comment on how the Summit went – things were certainly stacked against it.

These notwithstanding, many contentions still pesters regarding whether a group constituting 120 nations that represents a major chunk of the human population should be brushed aside so nonchalantly and treated so indifferently. Should its raison d’etre be put in doubt because some nations in its midst are considered, “unstable or fragile” – and whether in a multi-aligned world, does one need to write-off one of the oldest and most peaceful gatherings of nations at a time when member nations within the Movement – supported by “the powers that be” – need to work together and sort out issues that it was confronted with?  The question also remained whether the Group’s past leanings and performance should be considered as a precursor to what it could achieve going forward? Wouldn’t it have been worthwhile to work with the Group to explore probable solutions by creating a sense of acceptance and camaraderie? No matter what the answer may be, it is certain that the Non-Aligned Movement is capable of and is poised to play a pivotal role within the political and economic sphere of the developing world. It holds great promise in encouraging world equality in every meaning of the word and the only question is when the dystopian theorists and pessimistic leaders realize it and make amends.

As a result of the tirade against the Summit, the early casualty of all the negative publicity was a certain nullification of the positives that the Movement had committed itself to and what formed the crux of its founding principles, which meant that the Summit made news for all the wrong reasons. The good intention of the Summit was in sharp contrast highlighted by the speech that India’ s Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh gave to the gathering of NAM leaders that spoke of global peace, all-round development, promoting democracy, pluralism; combatting terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; tackling the menace of maritime piracy, the threat of cyber security; pursuing ecologically sustainable development while ensuring energy, water and food security – which were in essence stymied by all the hype and hoopla surrounding the rampant negatives rants.

Throughout the history of NAM, many critics have pointed out that the Movement still has to overcome its colonial and polarized mentality – which analysts see as primarily anti-West and mainly targeted against the U.S. – and is one of the reasons the Group is seen as regressive and ineffective. This is where India comes into the picture. India has established strong relationships with some of the oldest and strongest groups/entities in the world as part of its, ‘multi-aligned,’ approach as stated by Shashi Tharoor in his book, Pax Indica: India and the World of the 21st Century. Today India is part of the G-77, G-20, G4, IBSA, BRICS, RIC, BASIC, WTO, NAM et cetera as part of India’s flourishing, “Look East” and “Look West” policy, which puts it in an ideal position to make the NAM work – maybe not in a leadership role but from more of a coercive facilitator perspective.

With the growth of India’s economy and its growing stature around the world, the world has become more welcoming and receptive to India’s active engagement, and has since encouraged India’s participation in resolving issues that are crucial to maintaining a peaceful and stable climate for every country to grow and flourish in. Thus far, India has been a reluctant leader, choosing not to meddle in external matters as long as it doesn’t affect it, but the fact remains that the world would much rather prefer India – which takes great pride in calling itself the largest democracy in the world and a pacifist nation– to an aggressive imposer with possible clandestine motives. India could be the link that brings NAM into the new age and break the clichés that has tarnished its image over the years.

Now, the partnership between India and the United States is also very crucial to bring the rest of the world together with NAM and make them work for the greater good of all. The flourishing Indo-US relationship and India’s current working relationship with Iran, its understanding with members states of NAM, along with its rapport with other countries around the world, could well prove to be the elixir that the, “all but doomed negotiation,” with Iran and the UN Security Council lead agencies – made worse by Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei slamming the ‘overt dictatorship’ of the UN Security Council – needs in order to get things back on track. Eminent states of the NAM, along with India, US, and the UN, can also play a constructive role in the deteriorating situation in Syria, and help in taking the stalled negotiation for a Palestine homeland forward in urgency among many other prospective area of collaboration.

India also attaches great strategic importance to a safe and flourishing Iran vis-à-vis India’s growing energy needs. India is safeguarding its interest in the region through the development of the Chabahar port in Iran to help facilitate Indian logistics through to Afghanistan and Central Asia — and in apropos – developing the infrastructure needed therein. All these unravel into nothing if any conflict arises that might destabilize things so close to India’s borders, which is a very real possibility as things stand now. India, along with key NAM nation, could play the role of an impartial friend who acts as a go-between in the negotiations concerning the Iranians and the Security Council; the Syrian government and its people; and be a voice of support for the Palestine people et cetera, which will turn out to be a win-win situation for all concerned parties. It will allow space for a foolproof plan to be implemented in due course as per the will of the masses. This will therefore bring long-term closure to disputes in an amicable and acceptable manner.

In closing and before making any calls on NAM’s future, we would perhaps do well to remember that nations within the Movement have a great stake in what transpires in the world and should be looked at as a facilitator rather than a hindrance. NAM can be the umbrella under which all the parties — in its area of influence — that currently don’t look eye to eye can work together. India’s political diversity and growing stature means that it has to take the most just and equitable stance – and with NAM, India, the US, UN and other eminent nations putting peaceful resolution first – the threat of a Israel versus Iran, Islamic versus non-Islamic, Sunnis versus Shias, republicans versus monarchy conflicts can be averted – which I think is ultimately the whole point of today’s diplomacy and defines world politics in its simplest form.

So, for those who are keen on downplaying the importance of NAM – there could still be some use for the Non-Aligned Movement yet.