Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Arkansas promises to help voters stay registered to settle a federal suit

U.S. and Arkansas flags
dlewis33/Getty Images

Arkansas will make its voter rolls more accurate and its registration process smoother in order to settle a federal complaint.

The Justice Department had sued in November, arguing the state was out of compliance in several ways with the so-called motor voter law, which requires drivers' license agencies to make it easier for citizens to register to vote. Such suits have been filed in several other Southern states that have resisted or slow-walked some of the federal mandates.


Only five states have a smaller share of people registered to vote than Arkansas — 56 percent of the 3 million eligible. The settlement could give the number a modest boost.

The state has agreed to make sure that all change-of-address information submitted for driver's license purposes will be used automatically to update the motorist's registration information, as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires.

The government sued after learning that the DMV was only providing such information to election officials when drivers appeared in person to explain they had moved, not when they did so online or by mail. Thousands were disenfranchised by getting dropped from the rolls as a result.

"Since our founding as a republic, the right to vote has distinguished the United States from undemocratic regimes around the world," the head of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, Eric Dreiband, said in announcing the settlement. "Dictators, monarchs, emperors and tyrants have no place here. We rule ourselves. One way we do so is by making sure that voter registration information is accurate."


Read More

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stethoscope, pile of hundred dollar bills and a calculator

A deep dive into America’s healthcare cost crisis, comparing reform to a modern “moonshot.” Explores payment models, rising costs, and lessons from John F. Kennedy’s space race vision to drive systemic change.

IronHeart/Getty Images

The Moonshot America Needs to Solve Its Healthcare Crisis

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy told the nation, “We choose to go to the moon.” It’s often remembered as a moment of national ambition. In reality, the United States was locked in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the fear of falling behind in technological dominance made the mission unavoidable.

Today’s space race is driven by a different force. Governments and private companies are investing billions to capture economic advantages, from satellite infrastructure to advanced computing to the next frontier of resource extraction.

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Louisiana violated the Constitution in creating a new Black-majority voting district. This was after a Federal court had ruled that the previous map, by packing Blacks all in one district, diluted their votes, which violated the Voting Rights Act.

The question is what impact the decision in Louisiana v Callais will have on §2 of the Voting Rights Act ... and on the current gerrymander contest to gain safe seats in the House. The conservative majority said that the decision left the Act intact. The liberal minority, in a strong dissent by Justice Kagan, said that the practical impact was to "render §2 all but a dead letter," making it likely that existing Black-majority districts will not remain for long.

Keep ReadingShow less