Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The state of voting: April 4, 2022

election law changes - Voting Rights Lab

This weekly update summarzing legislative activity affecting voting and elections is powered by the Voting Rights Lab. Sign up for VRL’s weekly newsletter here.

The Voting Rights Lab is tracking 2,430 bills so far this session, with 565 bills that tighten the rules governing voter access or election administration and 1,086 bills that expand the rules.

Leading the news was Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey’s signing into law that legislation requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration. Elsewhere, the New Hampshire Senate passed legislation that would make its voter ID law much stricter but a North Carolina judicial panel ruled that citizens must be allowed to vote upon release from prison. And a federal judge in Florida ruled against some voting restrictions in S.B. 90, citing sections as “unconstitutional and racially motivated.”

Looking ahead: All eyes are on Georgia this week to see if S.B. 89 – the new vehicle for provisions impacting election administration – passes out of the legislature.

Here are the details:


Georgia elections bills see last-minute scramble in final days of legislative session. After the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously last week to reduce the House version of the elections omnibus, the House is now attempting to revive a number of the stricken provisions on the final day of legislative session by attaching them to S.B. 89. The House proposal would give the Georgia Bureau of Investigation authority to initiate elections investigations, allow for public inspection of ballots following certification, and impose new chain of custody requirements on county election officials. The bill was amended and referred out of the House Special Committee on Election Integrity on Monday morning, and must be passed by both chambers before the end of the day to be sent to Gov. Brian Kemp.

The Arizona governor signed a documental proof of citizenship requirement into law, and two lawsuits swiftly followed. Two lawsuits were filed within 24 hours of the enactment of legislation requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voting registration. The new law would not allow people to vote in presidential elections, or in any elections by mail, unless election officials confirmed the person’s citizenship through documentation provided by the voter or an existing database. Similar requirements have been found unconstitutional in Kansas, Georgia and Alabama. Amid growing concerns (paywall) about how H.B. 2492 will impact voters already registered, Ducey used his signing statement to reject a more extreme interpretation of the bill that would require voters who registered prior to 2004 to provide proof of citizenship or risk being kicked off the voter rolls.

New Hampshire advances strict voter ID legislation. Legislation passed the New Hampshire Senate last week that would make the state voter ID law more restrictive. Current New Hampshire law allows voters without ID to cast a regular ballot if they complete an affidavit affirming their identity, under penalty of perjury. The bill would eliminate that alternative, and instead rescind their vote from the count if they are unable to show an ID within 10 days of the election. Most states with voter ID laws offer an alternative to ensure the identity of voters without ID can be verified through other means. This new bill would put New Hampshire in the minority.

Federal judge rules that parts of Florida’s new election law are unconstitutional. A federal judge in Florida ruled that sections of the state’s sweeping voting legislation passed last year are unconstitutional and racially motivated. The ruling blocked the implementation of some of the bill’s restrictions on drop boxes, voter registration and line warming. The ruling also requires that the state obtain federal court approval for the next 10 years before making any new changes to these policies. This ruling will almost certainly be appealed to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

North Carolina Superior Court panel rules that citizens must be allowed to vote upon release from prison. A Superior Court panel ruled that North Carolina’s law prohibiting voting by people with past felony convictions violates the state Constitution. This ruling reverses a state law that prohibits voting by citizens with past felony convictions while they are on probation, parole or post-release supervision. While Republican lawmakers intend to appeal the ruling, this decision could expand access to more than 56,000 voters in the state.

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