Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Voting rights reform among Senate Democrats' end-of-year priorities

Chuck Schumer

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer noted voting rights reform was among his top legislative priorities for the remainder of the year.

Mandel Ngan/Getty Images

With only a few weeks left until the end of the year, Democrats are facing a long legislative to-do list.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer outlined the party's priorities in a "Dear Colleague" letter sent to his caucus on Sunday. While celebrating the passage of the infrastructure bill, Schumer acknowledged the "considerable" work left to do this month and in December.

Among the top agenda items are the Democrats' two major electoral reform bills: the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Both have been blocked from debate by GOP filibusters, but Schumer and his fellow Democrats appear determined to push forward.


The Freedom to Vote Act was introduced in the Senate in September as a compromise to the For the People Act. While the newer bill contains many of the same provisions as its predecessor, it was slimmed down to appease moderate Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who was the sole Democratic holdout on the For the People Act.

If enacted, the Freedom to Vote Act would ease access to the ballot box by expanding no-excuse absentee voting and automatic voter registration. It would also implement new minimum standards for states with voter ID laws. In addition to voting rights provisions, the bill would also strengthen protections for election workers, curb partisan gerrymandering and improve campaign finance transparency.

The Voting Rights Advancement Act, named after the late civil and voting rights icon John Lewis, would restore voting protections struck down by the Supreme Court. In 2013, the court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder eliminated the preclearance requirement, which mandated certain states with histories of racial discrimination receive advanced approval from the Justice Department before enacting new voting laws. The court's decision this summer in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee made it harder to challenge potentially discriminatory laws in court.

Earlier this month, GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Manchin signed on to a revised version of the VRAA that modified which factors courts can take into account for cases of potential voting rights violations. These changes were proposed in an attempt to garner more GOP support for the bill.

However, except for Murkowski supporting the VRAA, Republicans remained staunchly opposed to both bills and voted to block them from debate in the Senate. The GOP's stonewalling has only fueled the call by voting rights advocates to reform or eliminate the filibuster.

And Schumer appears more willing than ever to consider such a move.

"Just because Republicans will not join us doesn't mean Democrats should stop fighting," Schumer wrote in the letter. "This is too important. Even if it means going at it alone, we will continue to fight for voting rights and work to find an alternative path forward to defend the most fundamental liberty we have as citizens."

Although the filibuster was not mentioned explicitly in the letter, Schumer did say that he and his colleagues have been discussing ideas for how to "restore the Senate to protect our democracy" and that these conversations will continue this week.

In addition to the electoral reform legislation, Schumer said the Senate will focus on clean energy investment through the Build Back Better Act. Also on the agenda is the National Defense Authorization Act, which approves Defense Department policies and funding. A measure that, among other things, would bolster domestic manufacturing and supply chains may be attached to the NDAA.

Another critical agenda item is approving the fiscal 2022 appropriations bill by Dec. 3 to avoid a government shutdown. Congress narrowly dodged this disaster earlier this fall by passing stopgap funding. Schumer noted in the letter that it is likely another continuing resolution will be necessary to delay the issue.

Lastly, the Senate will consider and vote on the dozens of individuals President Biden has nominated for various administrative roles and judgeships.

Schumer concluded his letter by saying, "I am confident we can get each of these important items done this year, but it will likely take some long nights and weekends."

Read More

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less