Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Montana lawmakers reject bill to ease voting for Native Americans

Ceiling of the Montana Capitol

Lawmakers in Montana's Capitol reversed course Wednesday.

Feifei Cui-Paoluzzo/Getty Images

Montana lawmakers have shot down a bill that would have made it easier for Native Americans to vote.

The state House on Wednesday voted 51-48 to reject a bill that would have expanded voting access on Montana's seven Indian reservations. This is a sharp reversal from two days ago when legislators voted to advance the measure for final approval.

In the wake of the 2020 election, lawmakers in nearly every state are considering hundreds of election reform bills. Republicans are largely backing the more than 360 bills aimed at restricting voting access, while Democrats are pushing more than 840 expansive measures, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The Montana bill is among the few to earn a floor vote so far.


The House's rejection means that effort is likely dead, but some lawmakers are still hopeful the chamber could reconsider the measure, if not in this session then next year.

The bill would have required Montana's 56 counties to open at least one satellite or alternate election office on any reservations in their jurisdiction, beginning a month before an election. County officials and tribal leaders would have been given discretion to figure out the days and hours of operation.

Counties would have been instructed to accept tribal IDs, for voting or voter registration, even if they did not have an expiration date or physical address. Local officials would have also been encouraged to add ballot drop boxes.

While proponents of the bill saw it as a step in the right direction, some voting rights advocates said the measure didn't go far enough to bolster voting accessibility for Native Americans.

The legislation did go through revisions to make it more appealing to Republican lawmakers who were worried about the cost of the proposed changes. Before Wednesday's vote, there was narrow bipartisan approval of the bill, but ultimately five lawmakers — four Republicans and one Democrat — changed their mind and voted against the bill.


Read More

An illustration of the U.S. flag on the shape of the U.S. with blue and red figures of people across it.

Every state has its own constitution.

How State Constitutions Became the Battleground for American Rights and Liberties – on Both the Left and Right

Beyond picking governors, state legislators, local officials and representatives to serve in Congress, voters in almost every state this year will have the opportunity to amend the language of their state constitution. In one state, they could potentially rewrite the constitution altogether.

Though the U.S. Constitution is rarely amended, voters frequently amend their state constitutions. In every election cycle, voters are asked to ratify constitutional amendments.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs at a rally, one reads, "Trump is not above the law."

Protesters gather at a Nobody Is Above the Law rally protesting President Trump's interference in the Mueller investigation on November 08, 2018 in Washington, DC.

Larry French/Getty Images

The Double Standard Presidency: When We Watch Leaders Act Above the Law

Americans are told that no one is above the law. Yet every day, they watch a president behave in ways that would get any ordinary citizen fired, disciplined, confronted, or held accountable — and they watch some Americans excuse it. What makes this moment even more striking is that critics across the political spectrum, including conservatives, now warn that the presidency is operating on a dangerous double standard. This is not a partisan concern. It is a constitutional one. And it is tearing at the fabric of our democracy.

For generations, the Constitution has provided guardrails — separation of powers, checks and balances, oversight mechanisms, and limits on executive authority — designed to prevent any leader from functioning above the law. The framers feared concentrated power more than anything else. They believed that the presidency must be constrained not only by written law but by norms of restraint, dignity, and respect for institutions. Those norms held for centuries because presidents understood that the office was larger than any individual, and Congress understood that oversight was not optional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Study Reveals Sharp Generational Divide in How Latino Identity Influences Daily Life

Study Reveals Sharp Generational Divide in How Latino Identity Influences Daily Life

Latino immigrants and U.S.-born Latinos differ sharply in how much their identity shapes their daily lives, according to recent findings from the Pew Research Center’s 2025 National Survey of Latinos. The survey shows that Latino immigrants are far more likely than U.S.-born Latinos to say their identity is central to who they are, and that it influences their experiences in the United States. Pew researchers Gabriel Piña, Mark Hugo Lopez, Sahana Mukherjee, Dalia Fahmy, and Alexandra Cahn report that the divide reflects differences in cultural connection, lived experience, and generational distance from immigrant roots.

Pew’s analysis finds that Latino immigrants are significantly more likely to say their origins are central to their identity, while U.S.-born Latinos — especially those in the third generation or higher — are less likely to feel that connection. The report notes that “U.S. Hispanics are divided on whether their identity helps or hurts them in America,” with some respondents describing their Latino identity as a source of pride and connection, and others saying it is tied to discrimination or barriers.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

Clerk Matthew Sandbar, 34, demonstrates part of the ballot-sorting process to members of the media attending a walkthrough of the Philadelphia Ballot Processing Center used to process the ballots of the 2022 US midterm elections, in Philadelphia on October 27, 2022.

Photo by Ryan Collerd / AFP via Getty Images

A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

Tallying the results of Washington, DC’s first ranked-choice election in June took about 10 days—longer than many voters are used to. In an age when artificial intelligence can generate an answer in seconds, waiting days for election results can feel old-fashioned, inefficient, even suspicious. And it is about to matter far more widely. This November, 17 states, cities, and counties will use ranked-choice voting, including Maine and Alaska statewide, in races that could help decide control of Congress. More voters than ever will watch results take days to resolve, and more will be asked to trust a count they cannot see.

But that slowness may be one of its most democratic features.

Keep ReadingShow less