Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The state of voting: May 23, 2022

State of voting - election law changes

This weekly update summarizing 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 2,147 bills so far this session, with 576 bills that tighten the rules governing voter access or election administration and 1,023 bills that expand the rules.

Oklahoma enacted new laws that limit options in election-related litigation, make it more difficult to vote by mail, and create a new voter-facing felony. But Oklahoma and Illinois both enacted legislation improving access for voters with disabilities.

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson plans to sign a bill making the voter ID law in the state stricter and another bill to create in-person early voting in the state. Arizona enacted legislation that would expand voter registration services and improve the ability of mail voters to track their ballot.

Looking ahead: North Carolina’s General Assembly is now in short session through the end of June.

Here are the details:


Arizona enacts legislation increasing access to voter registration services and improving a voter’s ability to track the status of their mail ballot. Monday morning, Gov. Doug Ducey signed S.B. 1170, which adds voter registration services at the Department of Fish & Game for people applying for hunting, fishing and trapping licenses. Last week, he signed S.B. 1329, ensuring that mail ballots received on Election Day are promptly loaded into the ballot tracking system. Legislation that would prohibit same-day registration – and create a felony to punish any election official who registers someone on Election Day – is currently on the governor’s desk. Existing Arizona law does not allow same-day registration.

Oklahoma enacts several bills with a mix of provisions expanding and restricting voter access and election administration. On Friday, Gov. Kevin Stitt signed several election-related bills into law. One of the bills would make it more difficult to vote by mail by requiring that mail voters provide a specific ID number when applying for a mail ballot. Another would create new limits on election-related litigation by forcing all lawsuits to be resolved by court order and allowing legislative leadership to intervene. Another bill would allow visually disabled voters to receive an accessible ballot electronically, but it would also threaten voters with a felony if they are not legally blind but apply for a ballot electronically. Oklahoma’s regular legislative session ends this week.

The governor of Illinois signs legislation improving mail ballot access for voters with print disabilities. Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed a new law making it easier to vote by mail for voters with physical or cognitive disabilities that prevent them from effectively reading or using printed material.

Missouri’s legislative session ends with the governor planning to sign a bill that would create in-person early voting, while also tightening the state’s voter ID law. Gov. Mike Parson announced that he would “certainly” sign H.B. 1878, legislation that would create early voting for the first time in Missouri – but would also make the voter ID law in the state stricter. The bill would create two weeks of in-person early voting via in-person absentee ballots. It would also make the state’s ID law more restrictive by eliminating many of the ID types that Missouri voters are currently allowed to show. In Missouri, the governor has 45 days after a bill is passed and the legislature adjourns to sign or veto that bill.


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less