Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Voter registration volunteers are crucial for democracy. They shouldn't be threatened with fines or felonies.

Opinion

Person posting a sign that reads, "Register to vote here"
Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images
Robert Brandon is the president and CEO of the Fair Elections Center, a nonpartisan voting rights and election reform organization.

On National Voter Registration Day last September, activists, neighbors and community volunteers across the country took to the streets to help 1.5 million voters get registered in the span of just 24 hours, a historic feat in preparation for the 2020 election. But today, on this year's National Voter Registration Day, those same volunteers are being targeted by extreme, partisan anti-voting measures around the country.

Since 2012, National Voter Registration Day has mobilized thousands of volunteers to help fulfill the promise of our democracy: ensuring that all Americans have access to the ballot. While election officials work tirelessly to expand participation in our elections, many of them have too little funding and resources to reach potential voters, especially those in communities that have been historically underserved and disenfranchised.

Voter registration volunteers fill that gap. They expand the reach of election officials, building trust with their community members and encouraging them to participate in our elections. They regularly reach voters who are missed by government efforts by meeting them where they are, including at grocery stores, schools and community events. These efforts are a necessity for people with disabilities, young people, and Black and Latinx voters, who are up to twice as likely to register at voter registration drives than white voters.

Now, those very acts of civic engagement are being penalized in states across the country. Volunteers and community organizers in states like Texas, Florida and Kansas can face felony charges or hefty fines for helping voters register if they accidentally run afoul of needlessly cumbersome regulations that are often vague and may be enforced unpredictably.

These laws do nothing to strengthen voter registration; on the contrary, they are having immediate, debilitating impacts on efforts to sign up more voters. After Kansas made it a felony offense to give off the appearance of being an election official — a frighteningly ambiguous and subjective law — multiple groups, including the League of Women Voters, were forced to suspend their voter registration drives. As a result, fewer prospective voters will have the opportunity to get the voter registration assistance they need, shutting them out from the electoral process. These attacks on community-centered registration efforts are a severe threat to our democracy and a clear, partisan attempt to make it harder to vote. They must be stopped.

Laws penalizing essential, good-faith efforts to help voters register sow unnecessary distrust between volunteers and their neighbors, with the intent of restricting who gets to vote in our elections and without making elections any fairer.

Overturning extreme voter suppression laws and protecting the rights of the American people will require an all-hands-on-deck effort, including fighting these needless regulations in the courts. That's why my organization filed a lawsuit against Florida's bill SB 90 for requiring volunteers to provide misleading information to potential voters that could make them less likely to register and harder for community groups to build trust with those they help.

As election lawyers and voting rights advocates fight against the extreme, state-level restrictions to accessing the ballot box, the federal government needs to pass protections that remove unnecessary barriers to voter registration. The new Freedom to Vote Act introduced in Congress would make it easier for more people to register, including through same-day voter registration, thus freeing up more time and resources for election officials and community organizations to focus their outreach on communities that need it most.

Whatever their race, background or ZIP code, all eligible Americans deserve access to the ballot. Helping our neighbors and fellow citizens exercise their right to vote is a non-negotiable part of making that right a reality.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less