Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

GOP governor revives long push for restoring voting rights to Iowa felons

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds could act unilaterally to restore voting rights to felons, but says she wants a permanent solution that could not be rolled back by future governors.

Joshua Lott/Getty Images

Iowa's Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, is promising to revive her quest to end the state's status as the only place in the country where convicted felons are permanently barred from voting.

She says she is optimistic that when the General Assembly convenes next week, her fellow Republicans in the majority will pass legislation starting a process lasting several years for giving voting rights back to felons as soon as they complete their sentences.

The franchise has been given back to more than 2 million ex-convicts in at least eight states during the past decade, fulfilling a top goal of civil rights groups, who view restoration of the vote as an essential part of making criminals who have done their time productive members of society. Resistance has come mostly from red states. Most freed felons are black or Hispanic and vote reliably Democratic.


In Iowa, the only way for a felon to win the right to vote after prison is to get the governor's permission.

Reynolds could act unilaterally, and groups including the Campaign Legal Center have been pressing her to issue a broad decree this month — theoretically allowing about 52,000 more people to participate Feb. 3 in the first-in-the-nation Democratic presidential caucuses.

But such an executive order could be reversed by a future governor, and Reynolds has said that to prevent uncertainty she is pursuing the cumbersome system for changing the state constitution. A constitutional amendment in Iowa must be passed twice by the Legislature, with an election in between, and then win approval by the voters in a statewide referendum. That means 2024 is the first election year when Iowa felons could participate.

Reynolds first tried to advance the proposal after taking office a year ago, but the bill stalled in the Senate.

The issue then was that blocs of Republicans could not agree on the parameters for who would get back the right to vote. Some wanted to keep rapists, murderers and other violent criminals off the list, which is the case in many states. Others wanted to make felons pay all fines, court fees and restitution before their rights are restored, which civil rights groups say is a de facto poll tax and would prompt them to oppose the bill.

"I believe it's the right thing to do. And it's one of my priorities. Sometimes you don't get it the first year when you talk about it," Reynolds told the Cedar Rapids Gazette. "I think it's the right thing to do, and I'm going to do everything I can to make the case. And I feel pretty confident that we can get them there."

Read More

ICE Policy Challenged in Court for Blocking Congressional Oversight of Detention Centers

Federal agents guard outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in downtown Los Angeles as demonstrations continue after a series of immigration raids began last Friday on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

ICE Policy Challenged in Court for Blocking Congressional Oversight of Detention Centers

In a constitutional democracy, congressional oversight is not a courtesy—it is a cornerstone of the separation of powers enshrined in our founding documents.

Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) has filed an amicus brief in Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguing that ICE’s policy restricting unannounced visits by members of Congress “directly violates federal law.” Twelve lawmakers brought this suit to challenge ICE’s new requirement that elected officials provide seven days’ notice before visiting detention facilities—an edict that undermines transparency and shields executive agencies from scrutiny.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Billionaires Are Rewriting History and Democracy
Getty Images, SvetaZi

How Billionaires Are Rewriting History and Democracy

In the Gilded Age of the millionaire, wealth signified ownership. The titans of old built railroads, monopolized oil, and bought their indulgences in yachts, mansions, and eventually, sports teams. A franchise was the crown jewel: a visible, glamorous token of success. But that era is over. Today’s billionaires, those who tower, not with millions but with unimaginable billions, find sports teams and other baubles beneath them. For this new aristocracy, the true prize is authorship of History (with a capital “H”) itself.

Once you pass a certain threshold of wealth, it seems, mere possessions no longer thrill. At the billionaire’s scale, you wake up in the morning searching for something grand enough to justify your own existence, something commensurate with your supposed singularly historical importance. To buy a team or build another mansion is routine, played, trite. To reshape the very framework of society—now that is a worthy stimulus. That is the game. And increasingly, billionaires are playing it.

Keep ReadingShow less
an illustration of pople walking with brief cases from a UFO.

Echoing Serling’s To Serve Man, Edward Saltzberg reveals how modern authoritarianism uses language, fear, and media control to erode democracy from within.

To Serve Man—2025 Edition

In March 1962, Rod Serling introduced a Twilight Zone episode that feels prophetic today. "To Serve Man" begins with nine-foot aliens landing at the United Nations, promising to end war and famine. They offer boundless energy and peace. Unlike the menacing invaders of 1950s sci-fi, these Kanamits present themselves as benefactors with serene expressions and soothing words.

The promises appear real. Wars cease. Deserts bloom into gardens. Crop yields soar. People line up eagerly at the Kanamits' embassy to volunteer for trips to the aliens' paradise planet—a world without hunger, conflict, or want.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person in a military uniform holding a gavel.

As the Trump administration redefines “Warrior Ethos,” U.S. military leaders face a crucial test: defend democracy or follow unlawful orders.

Getty Images, Liudmila Chernetska

Warrior Ethos or Rule of Law? The Military’s Defining Moment

Does Secretary Hegseth’s extraordinary summoning of hundreds of U.S. command generals and admirals to a Sept. 30 meeting and the repugnant reinstatement of Medals of Honor to 20 participants in the infamous 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre—in which 300 Lakota Sioux men, women, and children were killed—foreshadow the imposition of a twisted approach to U.S. “Warrior Ethos”? Should military leaders accept an ethos that ignores the rule of law?

Active duty and retired officers must trumpet a resounding: NO, that is not acceptable. And, we civilians must realize the stakes and join them.

Keep ReadingShow less