Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Decision Will Fuel the “Disuniting” of the United States and the Unraveling of American Democracy

Trump’s Denaturalization Push and the Erosion of Legal Immigration

Trump’s Denaturalization Push and the Erosion of Legal Immigration

Judicial Courage?

Judicial Courage?

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell sitting with his hands folded in front of him.

Why the Decision Not to Prosecute Jerome Powell Damages Democracy

Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t

Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t

Senate Democrats revive push for long-shot voting rights legislation

Voting rights advocates

Voting rights advocates held a rally in August demanding the passage of the Voting Rights Advancement Act, but the bill remains stuck in the Senate.

Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Getty Images
Sara Swann
By Sara SwannOct 06, 2021
Sara Swann

As a staff writer, Sara covers a variety of democracy reform issues, including voting rights, money in politics, gerrymandering and civic education. Prior to joining The Fulcrum in May 2019, Sara reported on local government on Maryland's Eastern Shore for the USA Today network. She is a native West Virginian and a graduate of Syracuse University.

See More Writings by author

Democrats are making a fresh push for voting rights legislation in the Senate, despite the filibuster all but guaranteeing it will go nowhere.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont introduced the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act on Tuesday, calling the bill a "bedrock voting rights law." The Judiciary Committee convened a hearing on the legislation Wednesday afternoon.

The House passed a version of the bill in August, but the Senate waited to take up the legislation. So far no Republicans have indicated they are willing to support the VRAA, which means it will likely fall short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Every Senate Democrat has signed on to the VRAA except Joe Manchin of West Virginia. He similarly held out on co-sponsoring the For the People Act, a broad electoral reform bill, before ultimately supporting it and helping to craft a paired-down version known as the Freedom to Vote Act. Both bills remain in legislative limbo while the Senate resolves how to deal with debt ceiling, infrastructure bill and an additional spending package.

If the VRAA were to become law, it 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.

Voting rights advocates say the VRAA is especially important now as 19 states have passed 33 laws that make it harder to vote, according to the latest tally by the Brennan Center for Justice.

"The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would help identify barriers that could silence Black, Latino, Indigenous, young and new Americans and ensure we all have an equal say in the decisions that impact our lives," said Wade Henderson, interim president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

The Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized in a bipartisan manner five times since its original passing in 1965. However, Senate Republicans are likely to filibuster any attempt to pass the VRAA. Voting rights advocates are putting the pressure on Democrats to choose between the landmark legislation and modifying Senate procedure.

"Voting rights should never be a partisan issue, and for decades it wasn't," said Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause. "If 10 Senate Republicans will not support this bill, then Senate Democrats must reform the filibuster."


Latest news

Congressional Record: Capitol Hill’s Bipartisan Concert Starring Musical Congress Members
Bridging & Common Ground

Congressional Record: Capitol Hill’s Bipartisan Concert Starring Musical Congress Members

Preschool children playing with colorful shapes
Governance & Legislation

America Keeps Turning Its Back on Childcare; Families are Paying the Price.

Six Emerging Journalists Selected as 2026 Summer Fulcrum Fellows

Six Emerging Journalists Selected as 2026 Summer Fulcrum Fellows

Medicaid Cuts Could Threaten Key Student Services at IL Schools
Health

Medicaid Cuts Could Threaten Key Student Services at IL Schools

Read More

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime
Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026