Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

New Jersey's​ dark money law delayed

Dark money graphic
erhui1979/Getty Images

The donors behind New Jersey's most politically influential groups will remain a mystery indefinitely after a federal judge hit the pause button on a law that would have outed such "dark money" actors.

Set to go into effect later this month, the law would have required social welfare nonprofits and other nonprofit political organizations to disclose donors that gave more than $10,000 as well as spending related to elections and other political activity that exceeded $3,000. Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, signed the measure into law in June, despite previously vetoing the bill and calling it unconstitutional.

Soon after the governor signed the bill, though, Americans for Prosperity — a libertarian group funded by the Koch family, who would be affected by these new disclosure requirements — sued the state, arguing the law violated the First Amendment and targeted certain groups over others.


Two other nonprofit political advocacy groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Illinois Opportunities Project, have also filed lawsuits against the state for similar reasons.

U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti's decision to delay the law's enactment came as a result of Americans for Prosperity's lawsuit. He granted a preliminary injunction to halt the law's implementation until the lawsuit is resolved.

If allowed to stand, the law would require political nonprofits to start recording donor information on Oct. 15, with the intent to publish the first quarterly reports in January. But with the Martinotti's decision, these reports are on hold.

Supporters of the law had hoped it would shed light on dark money activity ahead of the off-year election this fall, when all 80 seats in the Legislature are on the ballot. In 2017, groups without donor disclosure requirements spent $41 million to influence the state's gubernatorial and legislative elections, according to estimates from New Jersey election officials.

Read More

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, speaks at an event in Lubbock on Oct 7, 2025. Paxton is seeking to shut down Jolt Initiative, a civic engagement group for Latinos, alleging that it's involved in illegal voter registration efforts. The group is fighting back.

Trace Thomas for The Texas Tribune

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Jolt Initiative, a nonprofit that aims to increase civic participation among Latinos, is suing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to block his efforts to shut the organization down.

Paxton announced Monday that he was seeking to revoke the nonprofit’s charter, alleging that it had orchestrated “a systematic, unlawful voter registration scheme.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, speaks at an event in Lubbock on Oct 7, 2025. Paxton is seeking to shut down Jolt Initiative, a civic engagement group for Latinos, alleging that it's involved in illegal voter registration efforts. The group is fighting back.

Trace Thomas for The Texas Tribune

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Jolt Initiative, a nonprofit that aims to increase civic participation among Latinos, is suing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to block his efforts to shut the organization down.

Paxton announced Monday that he was seeking to revoke the nonprofit’s charter, alleging that it had orchestrated “a systematic, unlawful voter registration scheme.”

Keep ReadingShow less
MAGA Gerrymandering, Pardons, Executive Actions Signal Heightened 2026 Voting Rights Threats

A deep dive into ongoing threats to U.S. democracy—from MAGA election interference and state voting restrictions to filibuster risks—as America approaches 2026 and 2028.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

MAGA Gerrymandering, Pardons, Executive Actions Signal Heightened 2026 Voting Rights Threats

Tuesday, November 4, demonstrated again that Americans want democracy and US elections are conducted credibly. Voter turnout was strong; there were few administrative glitches, but voters’ choices were honored.

The relatively smooth elections across the country nonetheless took place despite electiondenial and anti-voting efforts continuing through election day. These efforts will likely intensify as we move toward the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. The MAGA drive for unprecedented mid-decade, extreme political gerrymandering of congressional districts to guarantee their control of the House of Representatives is a conspicuous thrust of their campaign to remain in power at all costs.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

Major redistricting cases in Louisiana and Texas threaten the Voting Rights Act and the representation of Black and Latino voters across the South.

Getty Images, kali9

The Voting Rights Act Is Under Attack in the South

Under court order, Louisiana redrew to create a second majority-Black district—one that finally gave true representation to the community where my family lives. But now, that district—and the entire Voting Rights Act (VRA)—are under attack. Meanwhile, here in Texas, Republican lawmakers rammed through a mid-decade redistricting plan that dramatically reduces Black and Latino voting power in Congress. As a Louisiana-born Texan, it’s disheartening to see that my rights to representation as a Black voter in Texas, and those of my family back home in Louisiana, are at serious risk.

Two major redistricting cases in these neighboring states—Louisiana v. Callais and Texas’s statewide redistricting challenge, LULAC v. Abbott—are testing the strength and future of the VRA. In Louisiana, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide not just whether Louisiana must draw a majority-Black district to comply with Section 2 of the VRA, but whether considering race as one factor to address proven racial discrimination in electoral maps can itself be treated as discriminatory. It’s an argument that contradicts the purpose of the VRA: to ensure all people, regardless of race, have an equal opportunity to elect candidates amid ongoing discrimination and suppression of Black and Latino voters—to protect Black and Brown voters from dilution.

Keep ReadingShow less