Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Landmark test for felon voting rights reaches federal appeals court

Mississippi voters

A left-right coalition is trying to help nearly 200,000 Mississippians regain the right to vote after serving time. Above, voters cast ballots in Ridgeland, Miss., for a runoff election in November 2018.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The constitutionality of one of the nation's strictest curbs on felon voting was debated in a federal appeals court Tuesday.

A coalition of groups on both the left and right, from the ACLU and NAACP to the libertarian Cato Institute, have joined the cause of almost 200,000 Mississippians who have done their time but may never vote again without a governor's pardon or a reprieve from the Legislature. The state says it has almost limitless leeway under the Constitution to set those parameters.

However the case gets decided by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a subsequent ruling by the Supreme Court could provide definitive word on the future of expanded voting rights for convicts, which has emerged as one of the top democracy reform causes of the decade.


At the oral arguments, the six felon plaintiffs asserted that a lifetime ban on their voting is a form of cruel and unusual punishment that violates the Eighth Amendment. They also argued that the law violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because when it was first adopted, in 1868, the clear intent was to prevent as many black people as possible from voting and the law still affects them disproportionately.

Mississippi is among just 10 states that disenfranchise felons for long periods, sometimes forever, even once they have completed their probation and parole after prison. As a result, 9 percent of the state's adults may not vote, which is triple the national average. The number of African-Americans in that group is 127,000, or 16 percent of the black electorate, according to the Sentencing Project, which advocates for criminal justice reform.

The state Constitution took the vote away from those convicted of any of 10 felonies including murder, forgery and bigamy. Fourteen years ago the state attorney general added another dozen crimes to the list, from timber larceny to carjacking.

A convict may vote again only if pardoned by the governor or if a suffrage bill is passed just for them by two-thirds of the House and Senate. Eighteen such measures were introduced last year and none got a vote.

"With extremely limited and arbitrary exceptions, a citizen convicted in a Mississippi state court of a disenfranchising felony will never again vote in the state, no matter how minor the underlying crime or how long the citizen may live after sentence completion," the plaintiffs say in a brief produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

"There is no question that the U.S. Constitution expressly approves of the right of a State to disenfranchise felons — including permanently," the state argues in reply brief, and besides the plaintiffs have not proved any "present-day discriminatory effects."

In its brief, the Cato Institute says the roster of crimes on the list for permanent disenfranchisement is unconstitutionally arbitrary.

"For every crime on the list there is a similar or even worse crime not on the list. Check fraud means permanent disenfranchisement. But credit card fraud carries no similar penalty," the group argued. "By disenfranchising individuals for minor crimes, Mississippi drastically departs from the states that understand permanent disenfranchisement for what it is — among the most severe penalties our society can inflict."

The state Constitution that detailed the initial list of felonies is the same document that also allowed the state House to pick a governor in some circumstances. Many of the same groups representing the prisoners have also sued in state court to have that system nullified as unconstitutionally discretionary to black voters.


Read More

A stone bench with the word "Trust" etched in its side.
Photo by Dave Lowe on Unsplash

America’s Love and Trust Crisis

Last night, the President of the United States stood before Congress for nearly two hours and showed us exactly what America’s love and trust crisis looks like.

He called Democratic lawmakers “crazy.” He accused them of cheating. He pointed at half the chamber with contempt. Members of Congress shouted back. One was escorted out for holding a sign that read “Black People Aren’t Apes”—a reference to a video the President himself posted depicting the Obamas as primates. Democrats walked out. Republicans roared. The longest State of the Union in modern history became a spectacle of mutual degradation in the very chamber where we are supposed to govern ourselves together as one people under God.

Keep ReadingShow less
Resilience Is Not a Workplace Strategy

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on February 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images)

Resilience Is Not a Workplace Strategy

In his State of the Union address this year, the president gloriously celebrated how the nation is “winning.” Timed to lead into Women’s History Month, he made a brief mention of how women successfully balance both work and child-rearing. These stories matter. Representation matters. However, there is danger in glorifying resilience, particularly when it allows toxic workplace cultures to remain unchanged while employees absorb the cost.

Before we are employees, we are taught from an early age that freedom means pursuing “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Yet for many American women—especially Black women—the conditions required for these pursuits are constrained by economic structures that consume the very time and energy needed to experience the joy of being fully alive and free. In fact, a national survey conducted by the American Psychological Association found that women consistently reported higher stress levels than men. And a poll by the National Women’s Law Center and Morning Consult specifically highlighted the number of Black women (more than half) who described how stress in the workplace adversely impacts their health.

Keep ReadingShow less
Three candidates vie to become the first Latino Representative for Illinois Congressional District

(left to right): 1. Anabel Mendoza speaking at the Forum for 7th US Congressional District Democratic Candidates at Harry Caray’s 7th Inning Stretch in Streeterville. Video still. By Britton Struthers-Lugo, February 26, 2026.2. Jazmin Robinson (left) sitting at the Forum for 7th US Congressional District Democratic Candidates at Harry Caray’s 7th Inning Stretch in Streeterville. By Britton Struthers-Lugo, February 26, 2026. 3. Felix Tello speaking at the Forum for 7th US Congressional District Democratic Candidates at Harry Caray’s 7th Inning Stretch in Streeterville.

Video still. By Britton Struthers-Lugo, February 26, 2026. Illinois Latino News

Three candidates vie to become the first Latino Representative for Illinois Congressional District

United States Representative Danny Davis announced in July 2025 that he would not be seeking re-election in Illinois’s 7th Congressional District, motivating 13 Democrats and two Republicans to compete for the seat.

As the Illinois primary on March 17 approaches, three Latino candidates hope to become the Democratic nominee: Anabel Mendoza, Jazmin J. Robinson, and Felix Tello. The district has never had a Latino representative, and former Rep. Cardiss Collins remains the only woman to have served the district.

Keep ReadingShow less
Republicans aren’t willing to call the war in Iran what it is

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (left) and Admiral Charles Bradford "Brad" Cooper II, Commander of US Central Command, speak during a press conference at US Central Command (CENTCOM) headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, on March 5, 2026.

(Octavio Jones/AFP via Getty Images/TNS)

Republicans aren’t willing to call the war in Iran what it is

Let's state the obvious: We’re at war with Iran.

My evidence? Turn on your TV. U.S. forces, working with Israel, killed the supreme leader of Iran and many of his top aides. We sunk Iran’s navy and destroyed most of their air force. We bombed thousands of military sites across the region. President Trump, the commander in chief, has demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran. He routinely refers to this as a “war.” Pete Hegseth, who calls himself the secretary of war, also describes this as a war daily, such as last week when he said, “We set the terms of this war.”

Keep ReadingShow less