Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The state of voting

Georgia elections bills
Allard Schager/Getty Images

The Fulcrum is debuting a new feature, summarizing the latest legislative activity affecting voting and elections. This weekly update is powered by the Voting Rights Lab. Sign up for VRL’s weekly newsletter here.

The Voting Rights Lab is tracking 2,363 bills so far this session, including 548 bills that tighten the rules governing voter access or election administration and 1,062 bills that expand the rules.

The biggest action last week took place in Georgia, where an elections omnibus bill passed the House and is expected to be heard in the Senate Ethics Committee this week, and Arizona, where 11 bills died on the Senate floor last week, the most during one session in recent history.

Looking ahead: A new pro-voter package of bills may be introduced in Michigan this week. In Missouri, the House Committee on Elections and Elected Officials will hear bills requiring ballots to be counted by hand and modifying the requirements for votes necessary to implement a constitutional amendment.

Here are the details:


Georgia omnibus crosses over to the Senate. H.B. 1464 – which would allow for public ballot inspections, limit private donations for election administration, establish strict chain-of-custody requirements for ballots (voted and unvoted), amend the number of voting booths to at least one per 250 voters, and allow the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to look into claims of election fraud without a referral from state election officials – passed the House and is expected to be heard in a Senate committee this week. H.B. 1464 builds on Georgia’s elections overhaul in 2021, which significantly limited ballot drop boxes and led to the state’s current attempts to take over Fulton County elections.

Restrictive bills die in Arizona Senate floor vote. Eleven restrictive election bills died last week. A few bills did pass the floor vote, including a bill that would make it easier for people who receive mail ballots but do not return them to cast regular ballots in person. VRL is still watching bills that would require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, limit the use of drop boxes, and limit early voting on the last weekend before Election Day.

Three election bills sent to Utah governor. The Utah Legislature passed three election bills last week, including legislation that requires at least one drop box per municipality, prohibits the use of private donations to fund elections, and expands the protections of the voter address confidentiality program. The governor has until Thursday to sign these bills.

Michigan Democrats announce expansive election bills. Democrats announced a package of bills they intend to introduce, including a push for nine days of early voting and notification to voters of signature issues on mail ballots and applications.

Texas ballot rejections disproportionately affected Black voters. In the state’s primary election held earlier this month, portions of Harris County with large Black populations were 44 percent more likely to have ballots rejected than heavily white areas. Over 18,000 voters in the state’s largest counties (by population) – and majority-Black counties – had their mail-in ballots rejected this year as a result of legislation passed last year.

Arkansas judge enjoins restrictive voting laws. In a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs including the League of Women Voters and Arkansas United, a judge found that four laws passed in 2021 placed unconstitutional burdens on voting. The court also found that the defendant’s concerns about election integrity and insecurity were based entirely on conjecture and speculation.


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