Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ohio’s elections chief in aggressive effort to find voters who shouldn’t

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose

GOP Secretary of State Frank LaRose has been scouring the state's registration rolls in search of people who are not qualified to vote

Justin Merriman/Getty Images

Ohio's chief election official has taken another high-profile step in his campaign against perceived vote fraud, referring to the state's attorney general the names of 10 people he says appear to have cast ballots in Ohio and another state in the 2018 election.

Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose caused a stir just a few weeks earlier when he said he found 354 people who are not U.S. citizens but were registered in the state. Of those, 77 voted in the midterm, he said.

Voting rights advocates had criticized LaRose about the earlier report, saying what he found may have been simple mistakes, people confused about the system or people who got naturalized later than the records he was looking at.


They cited the debacle that occurred in Texas earlier this year, when the acting secretary of state claimed nearly 100,000 non-citizens had been found on the voter rolls. Subsequent checks revealed many of those were incorrectly identified as non-citizens and the controversy that ensued ended Republican David Whitely's chance of winning confirmation as secretary of state.

LaRose said caution was taken in the database cross checks that were used to find the non-citizens in Ohio and said it was up to Republican Attorney General Dave Yost to decide whether to bring charges.

LaRose was more direct regarding the discovery of 18 people who may have voted more than once: He sent a referral letter to Yoston Wednesday for possible prosecution of the 10 who allegedly voted a second time in Ohio.

"One person. One vote," he wrote. "The reason is simple and obvious: each of us deserve an equal voice in our democracy and allowing one voter to cast multiple ballots diminishes the value of the legally cast ballot of each voter."


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