Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The 11 states that would face federal oversight under a new Voting Rights Act

States that would require preclearance under proposal for new Voting Rights Act
Source: Institute for Southern Studies

A growing chorus of congressional Democrats are saying that enacting a new Voting Rights Act is the best way for Congress to honor John Lewis, the civil rights icon and veteran Atlanta congressman who died last week.

The Republicans running the Senate have signaled no interest in debating the bill, designed to revive the racial discrimination protections enshrined in the original 1965 landmark law. The Democratic House passed the measure in December, with Lewis wielding the gavel during the vote.

Many of his colleagues now say the measure should be dubbed the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act. There's talk of pushing it through the House a second time this summer, perhaps with election assistance aid to the states tacked on.


The legislation is a response to the Supreme Court's 2013 decision invalidating a central provision of the law, which then required places with histories of discrimination to get Justice Department permission for any changes to election laws or processes. Nine states and parts of five others were subject to such "preclearance" at the time, but the court said the formula for deciding which jurisdictions made the list was unconstitutionally outdated.

Since that ruling, in Shelby County v. Holder, almost every one of those places has tightened voting rules.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Under the updated formula now stuck in Congress, the four most populous states would be subject to preclearance along with seven others, according to analysts at the Institute for Southern Studies, a progressive policy group:

  • Alabama
  • California
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • New York
  • North Carolina
  • South Carolina
  • Texas
  • Virginia

Read More

Donald Trump being interviewed on stage

Donald Trump participated in an interivew Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait at the Economic Club of Chicago on Oct 16.

Amalia Huot-Marchand

Trump sticks to America First policies in deeply Democratic Chicago

Huot-Marchand is a graduate student at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism.

“I do not comment on those things. But let me tell you, if I did, it would be a really smart thing to do,” boasted Donald Trump, when Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait asked whether the former president had private phone calls with Vladimir Putin.

Welcomed with high applause and lots of laughs from the members and guests of the Economic Club of Chicago on Oct. 16, Trump bragged about his great relationships with U.S. adversaries and authoritarian leaders Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jung Un.

Keep ReadingShow less
Justin Levitt
Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Election lawyer Justin Levitt on why 2024 litigation is mostly hot air

Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Justin Levitt has been on the frontlines in some of American democracy’s biggest legal battles for two decades. Now a law professor at Los Angeles’ Loyola Marymount University, he has worked as a voting rights attorney and top Justice Department civil rights attorney, and he has advised both major parties.

In this Q&A, he describes why 2024’s partisan election litigation is likely to have limited impacts on voters and counting ballots. But that won’t stop partisan propagandists and fundraising from preying on voters.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stop the Steal rally in Washington, DC

"If that level of voter fraud is set to happen again, isn’t voting just a waste of time?" asks Clancy.

Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

If you think the 2020 election was stolen, why vote in 2024?

Clancy is co-founder of Citizen Connect and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund. Citizen Connect is an initiative of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, which also operates The Fulcrum.

I’m not here to debate whether the 2020 presidential election involved massive voter fraud that made Joe Biden’s victory possible. There has been extensive research, analysis and court cases related to that topic and nothing I say now will change your mind one way or the other. Nothing will change the fact that tens of millions of Americans believe Biden was not legitimately elected president.

So let’s assume for the sake of argument that there actually was game-changing election fraud that unjustly put Biden in the White House. If that was the case, what are the odds that Donald Trump would be “allowed” to win this time? If that level of voter fraud is set to happen again, isn’t voting just a waste of time?

Keep ReadingShow less
People lined up to get food

People line up at a food distribution event in Hartford, Conn., hosted by the Hispanic Families at Catholic Charities, GOYA food, and CICD Puerto Rican Day Parade

Belén Dumont

Not all Hartford Latinos will vote but they agree on food assistance

Dumont is a freelance journalist based in Connecticut.

The Fulcrum presents We the People, a series elevating the voices and visibility of the persons most affected by the decisions of elected officials. In this installment, we explore the motivations of over 36 million eligible Latino voters as they prepare to make their voices heard in November.

Keep ReadingShow less