Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Judge ambivalent on how quickly Georgia must modernize voting equipment

Judge Amy Totenberg

Judge Amy Totenberg

U.S. District Court

The federal judge overseeing complaints about Georgia's election system says she's conflicted about how quickly the state should have to modernize its voting equipment.

The ambivalence announced last week by U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg is escalating tensions even further in one of the most polarized and impassioned disputes in the country about election administration.

Georgia is the nation's ninth-most populous state. And, after decades as the anchor of a solidly Republican South, last fall's extraordinarily close contest for governor revealed it could be turning into a political tossup, with its 16 electoral votes going either way as soon as 2020, but only if the pivotal black electorate turns out in significant numbers.


Democrats allege those numbers were held down on purpose last year — and certainly weren't helped by antiquated voting machines — in order to give an improper edge to Republican Brian Kemp, the state's top election official, who ended up eking out a victory that prevented Democrat Stacey Abrams from becoming the nation's first black female governor.

In time for the Democratic presidential primary in March, Georgia is on course to buy the sort of voting system with a paper trail that election officials say is essential to guarding against domestic fraud or foreign hacking and boosting the electorate's confidence that ballots are being properly tallied.

The question now before Totenberg, who was nominated by President Obama, is whether the state must immediately abandon its two-decade-old touchscreen equipment in favor of a more reliable interim system for municipal and special elections this year.

"We can't sacrifice people's right to vote just because Georgia has left this system in place for 20 years and it's so far behind," Bruce Brown, who represents the Coalition for Good Governance and a group of voters, told the judge.

The state and Fulton County, which includes most of Atlanta, say an interim system would be too costly and confusing. They successfully sold the same argument to Totenberg last summer, when voting rights groups sued in an effort to get hand-marked paper ballots used in the gubernatorial election. Back then, she agreed that would be chaotic but warned that she'd frown on even more delay.

But she seemed conflicted at the conclusion of a two-day hearing Friday. "These are very difficult issues," she said. "I'm going to wrestle with them the best that I can, but these are not simple issues."

Even as that hearing was underway, the Coalition for Good Governance launched another front in it fight with the Republicans who run the state's elections. The group filed a lawsuit alleging that, soon after it first went to court two years ago to stop the use of the old voting machines, officials destroyed evidence that was "ground zero for establishing hacking, unauthorized access, and potential of manipulation of election results."

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger rebuffed the accusations in a statement pointing to last week's Senate Intelligence Committee report, which concluded that no machines were manipulated and no votes were changed.

Read More

Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Rioters breach Capitol security Jan. 6

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Ours is a system of “checks and balances.”

The president can do this or that, but the courts and Congress can put a stop to it (depending on the circumstances and relevant rules). When the courts rule that the executive branch can’t do something, Congress can write a new law saying the president can do it. When Congress passes a law the president doesn’t like, the president can veto it. Congress, if it has enough votes, can override the veto. And so on. The whole idea is to deny any one branch or person too much concentrated power.

Keep ReadingShow less
Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Rioters breach Capitol security Jan. 6

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Ours is a system of “checks and balances.”

The president can do this or that, but the courts and Congress can put a stop to it (depending on the circumstances and relevant rules). When the courts rule that the executive branch can’t do something, Congress can write a new law saying the president can do it. When Congress passes a law the president doesn’t like, the president can veto it. Congress, if it has enough votes, can override the veto. And so on. The whole idea is to deny any one branch or person too much concentrated power.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump vs. Marjorie Taylor Green?! Here's What MAGA Really Means
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene
Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images

Donald Trump vs. Marjorie Taylor Green?! Here's What MAGA Really Means

In an interview on Fox News, President Trump affirmed his support for H-1B visas. He argued that because the US lacks enough talented people, we “have to bring this talent” from abroad. His words sparked outrage among conservatives.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of Trump’s staunchest loyalists, pushed back against Trump’s narrative. Greene praised US-Americans as “the most talented people in the world.” She even introduced legislation aimed at ending “the mass replacement of American workers” by the H-1B visa program.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cryptocurrency: Debunking Myths, Understanding Realities, and Exploring Economic and Social Impacts
a pile of gold and silver bitcoins
Photo by Traxer on Unsplash

Cryptocurrency: Debunking Myths, Understanding Realities, and Exploring Economic and Social Impacts

“In 2020 and 2021, there was a big crypto bubble. You couldn’t turn a corner without seeing another celebrity crypto endorsement," said Mark Hays, the Associate Director for Cryptocurrency and Financial Technology with AFR/AFREF and with Demand Progress during the NFRPP’s October 25th, 2025, panel discussion. Hilary J. Allen, a Professor of Law at the American University Washington College of Law, joined Hays. The discussion was moderated by Peter Coy, a freelance journalist covering economics, business, and finance.

Celebrities like Kevin Hart, Gwyneth Paltrow, Madonna, Justin Bieber, Serena Williams, Paris Hilton, and Snoop Dogg jumped to endorse crypto-related companies. The record of these endorsements has been poor (Bloomberg), and some are calling for people who endorse these products without doing due diligence to face legal repercussions (Boston College Law Review). The message from the NFRPP’s panel discussion was one of intense skepticism towards cryptocurrencies in general, with Professor Allen going so far as to call them a “failure as a technology.”

Keep ReadingShow less