Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

House-passed election security bill has little chance in Senate

House-passed election security bill has little chance in Senate

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon in joined by other congressional Democrats in offering their support for the SAFE Act, which mandates use of paper ballots and provides grants for election equipment and security.

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The House of Representatives on Thursday passed legislation requiring the use of paper ballots and providing grants for replacing voting systems and improving security, but the bill stands minimal chance of advancing any further.

Everyone in the Democratic majority voted for the SAFE Act – for Securing America's Federal Elections – but only one Republican did so.

Similar Republican resistance in the Senate, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the urging of President Donald Trump, means the bill looks to be shelved for the indefinite future. But Democrats in the House wanted to make a show of passing it nonetheless as a way of sending a message they care about protecting the 2020 presidential vote from foreign hackers.


"Every American, no matter their choice in politics, should know their vote will be counted as cast," said California Democrat Zoe Lofgren, the author of the legislation and chairwoman of the panel that oversees federal elections.

The bill is a response to Russian attacks on U.S. election systems during the 2016 election cycle, including intrusions into voter registration systems.

Rodney Davis of Illinois, the top Republican on Lofgren's panel, criticized the bill as a "top-down federally mandated approach" that dictates to local governments how to respond to election security concerns. He blamed the Obama administration for not responding as soon as intelligence officials began to report on Russian attempts to hack U.S. election systems.

"This bill is simply another partisan bill by the majority," he said.

Davis called for resumption of negotiations on a bipartisan bill, but Lofgren said Democrats had "tried in vain" to negotiate with Republicans and were not successful.

The requirement for paper ballots is intended to prevent fraud and to allow voters to ensure their votes on accurately recorded. The bill also authorizes $1.3 billion for grants to implement new voting systems and to carry out security improvements. Those funds would still have to be appropriated by Congress.

Meanwhile the House also passed on Thursday, again on a mostly partisan vote of 224-196, an appropriations bill that includes $16.2 million to operate the Election Assistance Commission in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. That is a 75 percent increase over the current year. In addition, the bill includes $600 million for the commission to dole out to states for election improvements, almost doubling the $380 million set aside for that purpose in this year's budget.

The bill is a sprawling package that sets spending levels for a long roster of agencies under the heading of financial services and general government. It now goes to the Senate, where interest in advancing the annual budget bills is stronger than in addressing politically fraught policy measures.


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less