Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Minnesota's limits on voter assistance are illegal, latest suit says

older voters

The lawsuit claims the limits violate the Voting Rights Act.

Sara D. Davis/Getty Images

Minnesota's limit on the amount of help one person may give to others in casting their ballots violates federal law and the state's constitution, the latest Democratic voting rights lawsuit alleges.

The litigation was announced Thursday by the party's House and Senate campaign committees. They filed it last week against the state's top elections official, Secretary of State Steve Simon, a fellow Democrat.

The suit joins more than a dozen others already filed in the early stages of the 2020 campaign by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, part of an eight-figure attack on state laws they view as attempts to suppress turnout by black people and other minorities or to give Republicans some other political advantage.


Almost all the cases have been brought in places that are presidential tossups or have several hot congressional races In November.

While the Democratic nominee has carried Minnesota in every White House contest since 1976, President Trump came within 2 points (45,000 votes) of winning there last time and has vowed to contest it harder this fall.

The new suit is the second the Democrats have brought in the state. Last fall they sued in federal court challenging a Minnesota law that dictates the order of candidates on the ballot be the reverse of the results of the previous election. That means candidates of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (as its uniquely known in the state) will be listed last this November, which the party argues puts it at a disadvantage.

The Minnesota law challenged by the newest suit states that a person may help no more than three voters complete in-person or absentee ballots. The intent of the law is to prevent efforts to manipulate the votes of elderly, disabled and non-English-speaking voters.

But the lawsuit says the statute directly violates the federal Voting Rights Act requiring that any voter needing assistance has the right to choose whomever they want as a helper. The Democrats also maintain the law presents a burden on the right to vote under the Minnesota Constitution.

Last year, Simon conceded at a state legislative hearing that the limit on helpers may not survive a legal challenge.

The suit argues the law places a particular burden on the large communities of Somalis and Hmong people from Southeast Asia who have settled in Minnesota.

"We should be working to increase access to the ballot, not restrict it," said Rep. Cheri Bustos of Illinois, the DCCC chairwoman.

Her group and its Senate counterpart, which recruit and help finance congressional candidates, have pledged to spend more than $10 million on their lawsuit strategy, which has so far been pressed in eight states: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. They have already scored a handful of wins, most recently when South Carolina officials agreed this week to drop a requirement that complete Social Security numbers be provided on voter registration forms.


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less