Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

Trump’s Plan to Strip Rep. Omar of Her Citizenship Is Unconstitutional and a Threat to All of Us

JD Vance

JD Vance Tells Republicans Who America’s Real Birthright Citizens Are

Group of voters stand in line

Six Key Voting Blocs Hold the Balance of Power on Nov. 3

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Man holding American flag

This Is What Makes America Great

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

"I Voted" sticker
Elections

New Tool Reveals Which Americans Hold Outsized Voting Power

Man dressed in jaguar costume
Community

Why Language Access Matters for Indigenous New Yorkers

Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico
Elections

Are Independent Voters About to Flip Texas?

Woman sitting and typing on laptop on her lap.
Media & Technology

AI’s Information Crisis: Why Trust Is Harder to Sustain Than Ever

Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026