Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Voting bill in Washington killed by impasse on which felons should benefit

State capitol in Olympia, Washington

Democrats in Olympia failed to corral enough votes in time to push through their expansion of felons' voting rights.

JerryPDX/Getty Images

The cause of felon voting rights has suffered an unexpected setback in one of the nation's more progressive states.

Legislation that would allow convicted criminals in Washington to register and vote as soon as they get out of prison was killed Wednesday night in the solidly Democratic state Senate — the victim of a lack of compromise.

The measure, which was spiked on the last day it could advance under the Legislature's rules, had been perhaps the most prominent state legislative effort this year to expand the franchise for freed felons in time for the presidential election.


Doing so is a top cause of civil rights groups, who say getting back the vote amounts to a stamp of readmission into society for a group already marginalized because it's disproportionately poor and non-white. On the other side are those who argue that felons' debt to society must not be made so easy to repay. And on top of that debate is partisan politics, because those who have been incarcerated lean decidedly Democratic.

At issue in Olympia was just how speedily voting rights should be restored, and for which felons. Washington is already among the 21 states that do so for all felons after they complete their parole or probation. The legislation would have made Washington the 17th state to make the restoration automatic upon release from prison. About 10,000 people would have benefited.

Democrats abruptly halted debate, however, when it became clear the bill lacked the 25 votes necessary for passage.

That happened soon after minority Republicans succeeded, with some cross-aisle votes, in amending the bill to deny the new benefit to sex offenders on probation. After senators narrowly rejected a subsequent GOP proposal to also exempt murderers and others convicted of violent crimes, Democrats concluded the bill's passage would pose campaign season trouble.

"If you're going to go home and say 'rape a child, you can't vote, shoot a child, you get to vote,' how do you explain that to your constituents, how do you explain that to the people?" Republican Doug Ericksen had warned his colleagues.

Several states have different timetables for giving the vote back to the most serious offenders, or deny them the vote altogether. The most famous recent expansion of felon voting rights, the referendum approved by Florida voters in 2018, does not cover murderess or sex offenders, for example.

"We are extremely disappointed that the voting rights restoration bill did not pass," the ACLU of Washington said in a statement. "The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and the time to tear down these barriers is long past due."

The prime sponsor, Democrat Patty Kuderer, who has been working to win Senate passage for three years, vowed to try again in 2021. She noted her bill was pushed by a broad coalition of 50 organizations including the association of local prosecutors, the Department of Corrections, and Democratic Attorney General Bob Ferguson.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less