Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Senate Republicans reluctant to consider election security measures

U.S. intelligence agencies agree on the importance of improving election security. But like with most other policy issues that could be on the table this year, politics is getting in the way of any solutions.

As the McClatchy DC Bureau reported, "partisanship has all but killed any chance that Congress will pass legislation to shore up election security before voters cast their ballots next year."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has slammed the door on any vote on House Democrats' political overhaul legislation, which includes election security measures that would provide grant funding for states to upgrade voting equipment, train election officials on cybersecurity and conduct post-election audits.


McConnell's opposition to the House-passed bill, known as HR 1, has less to do with his aversion to election security, however, than his distaste for the bill's other proposals, such as new campaign finance restrictions.

And yet, Republican leadership appears to be lukewarm on a different Senate bill focused solely on election security — one that has bipartisan support.

The Secure Elections Act introduced last year aims to improve cybersecurity information-sharing between federal agencies and state election officials, offer election-security grants and provide security clearances to state election officials. The bill was authored by Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma and Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Kamala Harris of California.

Despite bipartisan backing, the legislation has hit a brick wall in the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over election security legislation.

Rules Chairman Roy Blunt, a Republican from Missouri, said he has no plans to discuss the bill because McConnell is not inclined to bring up "even a GOP-led election bill to the floor for fear Democrats might try to amend it" with provisions plucked from HR 1.

"The House action on election legislation has actually made it even less likely that that bill could possibly be on the Senate floor," Blunt said. "Their [H.R. 1] bill was a combination of everything that Democrats have wanted to do over the past 20 years all put into one big bill. ... That bill's just not going to go to the floor. Neither is any other bill that opens the door to these issues. Leader gets to decide that and he has made it clear."


Read More

Michelle Martinez, University of Michigan (U-M)

Michelle Martinez, the inaugural director of the Tishman Center for Social Justice and the Environment at the University of Michigan (U-M)

At the University of Michigan, Environmental Justice Starts With Who Gets to Decide

When Michelle Martinez talks about climate change, she does not begin with temperatures, emissions, or models and projections.

She begins with people. For Martinez, the inaugural director of the Tishman Center for Social Justice and the Environment at the University of Michigan (U-M), climate change is already being experienced through the housing, economic, and political crises confronting communities today. And that makes climate justice inseparable from a more basic civic question: Who has the power to decide what happens to a community?

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of Man Pointing to an I Voted Sticker

Close Up Hand of Man Pointing to an I Voted Sticker Place on His Shirt

Getty Images

Voters Want Results. The Midterms Made That Clear.

The 2026 midterm elections were never going to be a referendum on one person. They were always a test of whether Americans believed their leaders were addressing the issues affecting their daily lives.

Voters delivered a clear message in the midterm elections. The results were historic. Democrats not only reclaimed control of the House of Representatives, but also captured a majority in the U.S. Senate.

Keep ReadingShow less
A woman protesting holds a sign that readds, "Our Raise! Labor Safety Costs, surrounded by other people.

Uber drivers participate in a rally outside of the Uber Headquarters on January 05, 2023 in New York City. Uber drivers in NYC participated in a 24-hour strike outside of the company's NYC headquarters

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

21st-Century Gig Workers Need Portable Benefits

In recent years, the US labor force has been undergoing a fundamental transformation. In today’s "Uber economy," gig workers, freelancers, contractors, temps, permatemps, remote workers after COVID, and so-called “independent workers” have been championed by Silicon Valley and Wall Street as the “new way to work”—the wave of the future, especially with AI changing the nature of work itself.

Many US consumers have driven in an Uber taxi, but don’t realize that most drivers earn below minimum wage after accounting for vehicle expenses, gas, maintenance, and unpaid time waiting for passengers. Those drivers are so-called “independent contractors,” so the billion-dollar Uber is not responsible for providing healthcare, Social Security contributions, workers' compensation, or unemployment compensation, not to mention sick leave or vacation pay.

Keep ReadingShow less