Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

No stricter scrutiny for Kentucky inactive voters who show up this year

Kentucky voters

A judge has ruled that voting officials in Kentucky must limit the bureaucracy that would-be voters would face if they show up at their polling stations, like this one in Lexington, for the first time in years.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Kentucky may not set higher bureaucratic thresholds for recently inactive voters who decide they want to cast ballots this fall, a state judge has ruled.

The decision is a victory for voting rights and for the state's Democratic Party, which sued last week to prevent the state from subjecting 175,000 people labeled "inactive voters" to stricter scrutiny at their polling places. The party believes most of those voters are on their side, and could prove crucial to the fortunes of Andy Beshear, the state's Democratic attorney general, who's in a tossup race for governor against Republican incumbent Matt Bevin.


People are listed as inactive because they were sent mailings from state election officials that were returned as undeliverable. If they showed up at the polls in November, the plan was to allow them to vote only after signing a special roster and swearing under criminal penalty they were eligible voters.

"Not every voter has the luxury of waiting for a possibly lengthy period of time to jump through unnecessary hoops when the State Board of Elections' intent can be achieved through simpler, less prejudicial means," wrote Judge Thomas Wingate of the Circuit Court in Frankfort. He ordered election officials to put all voters on one list but mark those on the inactive list with an asterisk meaning poll workers should update the address on file.

Federal law says people may not be dropped from the rolls "solely" because they haven't voted. Last year Kentucky settled a federal lawsuit by promising to cull the rolls only by sending mailings to determine if non-recent voters had moved, died or gone to prison. The inactive voter list was made to comply with that settlement.


Read More

The Word ‘Black’ Has Disappeared From a Set of Bills Aimed at Addressing Black Maternal Health

The Momnibus Act was previously known as the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act, but the word 'Black' has been removed from the title and appears only once across the latest package.

Emily Scherer for The 19th

The Word ‘Black’ Has Disappeared From a Set of Bills Aimed at Addressing Black Maternal Health

The word “Black” has been almost completely removed from a package of bills that have long been viewed as Congress’ main legislative vehicle to address the Black maternal health crisis, frustrating some advocates who feel Black women are being erased from the policy.

The key change this year is the title. The Momnibus Act — filed in mid-March — was called the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act in 2023; before that it was the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021 and the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2020. None of the previous packages, which were championed by Democrats, have been enacted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Never Intended To Be Just

U.S. President Donald Trump on May 22, 2026 in Suffern, New York.

(Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)

Trump Never Intended To Be Just

Let us set aside, for a moment, the fact that in suing the IRS, Donald Trump initiated a lawsuit that was meritless, frivolous, and a blatant conflict of interest…in his own words, “I am supposed to work out a settlement with myself.” Let us further acknowledge, but look past the fact, that the settlement is filled with “illegal cookies” like his effort to exempt himself and his family members or family-controlled companies, from past or future IRS audits or any future obligations to ever pay federal taxes.

Please appreciate, but set aside for a moment, that this is the most corrupt administration in modern US history. Further, I would like to ignore the fact that this appears to be an effort to finance a private militia that has violently sought to undermine the US Government and the electoral capacity of the vote of the people of the United States of America.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fragile Promise of the Ballot
black and white love print crew neck shirt
Photo by Cyrus Crossan on Unsplash

The Fragile Promise of the Ballot

Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee were not just redefinitions of election law; they marked a critical shift away from the federal government’s duty to ensure equal ballot access—a duty fundamental to democracy.

The consequences were swift and broad. Within hours, Shelby County, Texas, imposed strict voter ID rules that federal officials had previously blocked under the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions. Soon after, North Carolina reduced early voting and eliminated same-day registration. Across parts of Alabama, Georgia, and other Southern states, polling places closed or moved, often in communities with large Black populations. What once required federal review could now proceed quickly.

Keep ReadingShow less