Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Local officials push Iowa governor to fulfill felon voting rights vow

Iowa felon voting, President Donald Trump, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds

County election administrators want Gov. Kim Reynolds, here at a January rally in Des Moines with President Trump, to make good on her promise right away.

Tom Brenner/Getty Images

Pressure is building for Gov. Kim Reynolds to quickly fulfill her promise to restore voting rights to Iowa's convicted felons in time for the general election.

On Thursday, one month after the Republican governor promised such an executive order, county election administrators urged her to hurry up — because otherwise it might not be possible to make the bureaucratic changes before the November vote.

The details of her proclamation could shape the civic future of as many of 60,000 Iowans who have finished prison terms for felonies. The state is the only one that permanently denies the franchise to all felons, at a time when expanding their political rights has been a top cause of civil rights groups.


"These changes cannot happen overnight," said the letter to the governor from Roxanna Moritz, the president of the state Association of County Auditors, the officials who run elections in Iowa.

Not only will mailings, instructions to poll workers and government websites need to be altered, she said, but "this policy should be supported by outreach and education to inform potential voters of their eligibility" so they can register by the Oct. 24 deadline, 10 days before Election Day.

"It will be out in plenty of time prior to the election," Reynolds vowed in a radio interview Wednesday, saying her staff and state attorneys are meeting with various groups to gather input.

She also signaled she would take victims into account by keeping the lifetime ban on voting for those convicted of murderer, rape and other violent crimes.

The county officials said they favored a blanket decision, because administering registration based on criminal statutes would be too difficult.

They also asked Reynolds to not require felons to repay any fines or restitution before voting again. The auditors said figuring out how much the ex-felons owe and collecting that money would be too complicated and time consuming.

That echoes arguments central to the most prominent felon voting move in the country, in Florida, where the restoration of rights for several hundred thousand ex-convicts has been halted by a state law requiring them to make good on all their financial obligations to the government. Critics say that amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax, but this week the Supreme Court decided not to intervene — at least not before the state's August primary.

Reynolds had supported a constitutional amendment restoring voting rights, but that proposal stalled last month in the GOP-controlled General Assembly. Legislators did pass and the governor signed, however, a bill to require felons to pay restitution to victims if they ever get their voting rights back. A payment plan would still be allowed for fines and court costs and would not delay voting rights restoration.

But it's not clear if that law would apply to changes made through executive order. The law specifically states its requirements kick in only upon passage by the voters of a constitutional amendment restoring felon voting rights.

The issue has gained fresh attention during this summer's national reckoning with racism, in particular the racial inequities in law enforcement. A disproportionate share of the nation's prisoners are Black and Latino, and allowing them to fully re-enter society after their release is being hailed as an overdue step toward justice.

During a rally in June at the Capitol in Des Moines, Black Lives Matter activists presented a list of five demands, one of which was the executive order the governor then promised. Members of the group have pressed her for quick action ever since.


Read More

Zohran Mamdani’s call for warm ‘collectivism’ is dead on arrival

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his wife Rama Duwaji wave after his ceremonial inauguration as mayor at City Hall on Jan. 1, 2026, in New York.

(Spencer Platt/Getty Images/TNS)

Zohran Mamdani’s call for warm ‘collectivism’ is dead on arrival

The day before the Trump administration captured and extradited Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, many on the right (including yours truly) had a field day mocking something the newly minted mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, said during his inaugural address.

The proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America proclaimed: “We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The Lie of “Safe” State Violence in America: Montgomery Then, Minneapolis Now

Police tape surrounds a vehicle suspected to be involved in a shooting by an ICE agent during federal law enforcement operations on January 07, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

The Lie of “Safe” State Violence in America: Montgomery Then, Minneapolis Now

Once again, the nation watched in horror as a 37-year-old woman was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. The incident was caught on video. Neighbors saw it happen, their disbelief clear. The story has been widely reported, but hearing it again does not make it any less violent. Video suggest, there was a confrontation. The woman tried to drive away. An agent stepped in front of her car. Multiple shots went through the windshield. Witnesses told reporters that a physician at the scene attempted to provide aid but was prevented from approaching the vehicle, a claim that federal authorities have not publicly addressed. That fact, if accurate, should trouble us most.

What happened on that street was more than just a tragic mistake. It was a moral challenge to our society, asking for more than just shock or sadness. This moment makes us ask: what kind of nation have we created, and what violence have we come to see as normal? We need to admit our shared responsibility, knowing that our daily choices and silence help create a culture where this violence is accepted. Including ourselves in this 'we' makes us care more deeply and pushes us to act, not just reflect.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

From Episode to System

The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Two Economies - Soaring Stocks and Slashed Food Stamps

As 2026 begins, the U.S. economy is splitting in two—booming corporate profits and stock gains for the wealthy, deepening hardship for working families.

America’s Two Economies - Soaring Stocks and Slashed Food Stamps

The close of the 2025 holiday season has revealed a stark divide in the U.S. economy. As 2026 begins, the United States appears to be operating in two financial realities: record corporate profits and soaring stock values for the wealthy, alongside deepening hardship for millions of ordinary households. For many Americans, Christmas was overshadowed not by celebration but by economic strain, compounded by the rollback of key federal assistance programs.

The year’s economic data offered mixed signals. Online sales surged to $11.8 billion on Black Friday, and overall holiday spending is projected to exceed $1 trillion for the first time. Yet nearly half of all national consumption now comes from high-income households, whose spending on luxury goods and premium travel masks the growing struggles of families at the lower end of the income scale.

Keep ReadingShow less