Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Will more states follow Arizona’s lead on voter registration laws?

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey

Editor's note: This story was updated with information about a lawsuit filed Thursday in Arizona.

When Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law proof-of-citizenship voting requirements, he set the stage for another federal court battle on the issue. Legislators in other states have considered similar legislation but so far none have advanced as far as Arizona’s changes.

The new law retroactively requires all voters to provide proof of citizenship, even those who are already registered to cast ballots in the state, updating a 2004 provision that only put that burden on new voters.

Opponents of the new law say as many as 190,000 people may be removed from the voter rolls because no such requirement existed when they registered. They would need to re-register, but might not be aware of the change in their status.

Lawmakers in a handful of other states also have been pushing voter registration changes tied to citizenship this year.


This isn’t a new fight

Under federal law, people registering to vote must attest that they are citizens, but they are not required to provide any proof of their status. States may impose their own citizenship requirements for state and local elections, and a few have done so but only Arizona has put it into practice.

Since 2004, Arizona has required people registered to vote to include proof of citizenship, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the state cannot require such documentation from people who use the federal voter registration form. Therefore, Arizonans who use the federal form may not vote in state and local elections.

An attorney for the state House told lawmakers the new requirements violate federal law, and a lawsuit was filed Thursday morning in U.S. District Court.

"This is an obvious attempt by Arizona Republicans to limit access to voting, but we’ll fight to ensure that no voter is wrongly disenfranchised," said Marc Elias, a Democratic lawyer who filed the case on behalf of the civic engagmeent group Mi Familia Vota.

In 2016, Alabama, Georgia and Kansas asked the Election Assistance Commission to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form. The case went to federal court, which put a stop to the request.

Proponents of requiring documentary proof of citizenship say such laws are critical to fending off voter fraud, even though instances of illegal voting are rare and do not impact election outcomes.

Opponents say these laws can actually prevent some eligible citizens from voting because they may not possess the required documentation.

“Those most likely to be affected by these laws are students, the elderly, the disabled, low-income individuals, the homeless, and naturalized citizens,” Stuart Naifeh, a former senior counsel at the liberal think tank Demos, wrote in 2014. Aside from these narrow populations, across the board, Native Americans, African Americans and members of other historically disadvantaged and disenfranchised groups are also less likely to have, or have ready access to, documents that will satisfy documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements.”

Other bills being considered

In Mississippi, Republican lawmakers had been on the verge of advancing legislation that would have put into place aggressive measures to purge voter rolls of noncitizens. But just prior to a vote in the state House, Republicans amended the bill to soften the language and make it harder to cancel a voter’s registration.

When GOP lawmakers determined the bill would be bad for democracy, they agreed to the change, according to the Clarion Ledger.

That bill has been passed by both chambers and awaits the governor’s signature.

In Idaho, the House has passed a bill that would require people registering to vote on Election Day to provide proof of citizenship. Voter registration in Idaho requires a driver’s license or Social Security number, but a license can be obtained by non-citizens. The state enacted a law in March that adds a “citizenship” notation to driver’s licenses.

In 2020, more than 87,000 people registered to vote on Election Day in Idaho, accounting for approximately 10 percent of the ballots cast.

The bill was passed by the House on March 14 and has been referred to a Senate committee for consideration.

Legislators in at least two other states have attempted to impose new citizenship requirements, but their proposals did not advance.

In Oklahoma, language was removed from a bill that would have required all registered voters to re-register and provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Anyone who did not do so would only be permitted to vote in federal elections Election Secretary Paul Ziriax convinced lawmakers that such a requirement would be expensive, possibly unconstitutional and a heavy burden on voters, according to Oklahoma Watch.

And in Washington, a bill to require all registered voters to provide proof of citizenship failed to advance out of a House committee.

Other bills have been introduced in Louisiana, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, according to the Voting Rights Lab's legislation tracker.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less