Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Fight over purging vs. accuracy of voter rolls arrives in battleground Pa.

Pennsylvania
bubaone/Getty Images

Two prominent voting rights groups are attempting to formally intervene so they can fight a Pennsylvania lawsuit that threatens thousands of names on the voter rolls in that marquee battleground state.

The suit filed two weeks ago by Judicial Watch, a conservative advocacy group, maintains the state and three bellwether counties are not following federal law requiring regular maintenance to cull registration rosters of people who have moved, died or are no longer eligible to vote for some other reason.

It is the latest skirmish over voter rolls that could alter the course of the 2020 election. Republicans argue that properly maintaining the lists is not only a federal mandate but also helps prevent election fraud. Democrats generally oppose these efforts, which they say are too often partisan crusades to suppress the vote and end up improperly disenfranchising eligible voters.


The suit claims the three suburban Philadelphia counties — Bucks, Chester and Delaware, with a combined 1.2 million registered voters — are not following the federal cleanup requirements and are refusing to turn over documents describing their maintenance efforts.

On Monday, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters asked a state judge to allow them to become defendants, because their members are among the people whose names might be removed from the rolls. (The current defendants are Democratic Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar and election officials in the three counties.)

The law allows names to be removed from the registration rolls in Pennsylvania using a two-step process. Letters are sent to people thought to be no longer eligible. Those who do not respond can stay on the rolls by voting in one of the next two federal elections, but if they don't their names are dropped — at least until the register anew.

The state's 20 electoral votes will be one of the most hotly contested prizes in the fall. Last time President Trump carried Pennsylvania by 7 tenths of a point, a scant 44,000 votes, breaking a Democratic winning streak for the Democrats that started in 1992.

Polling currently shows former Vice President Joe Biden with a narrow edge in the state, where the result almost always hinges on turnout in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and their close-in suburbs like the places targeted by Judicial Watch.

Trump's victory was even narrower four years ago in Wisconsin, fewer than 23,000 votes, and it has become the site of the nation's most intense legal fight over the registration rolls — with the fate of more than 200,000 names in the balance.

The dispute is now before the state Supreme Court, which has not decided whether to reconsider a lower appeals court's unanimous ruling in February that the voters should remain on the rolls at least until the state addresses what it has conceded are flaws in its own record-keeping. Most of the disputed names are on the rolls of Democrat-leaning Milwaukee and Madison.


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