Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Opinion

Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Vote here sign

Caitlin Wilson/AFP via Getty Images

Last month, one of the most consequential cases before the Supreme Court began. Six white Justices, two Black and one Latina took the bench for arguments in Louisiana v. Callais. Addressing a core principle of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: representation. The Court is asked to consider if prohibiting the creation of voting districts that intentionally dilute Black and Brown voting power in turn violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments.

For some, it may be difficult to believe that we’re revisiting this question in 2025. But in truth, the path to voting has been complex since the founding of this country; especially when you template race over the ballot box. America has grappled with the voting question since the end of the Civil War. Through amendments, Congress dropped the term “property” when describing millions of Black Americans now freed from their plantation; then later clarified that we were not only human beings but also Americans before realizing the right to vote could not be assumed in this country. Still, nearly a century would pass before President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ensuring voting was accessible, free and fair.


Considering this long history of disenfranchisement, it's little to wonder why the Voting Rights Act is being questioned in the Supreme Court today.

I’m reminded of a conversation I had with my father some years ago. When I was younger, he and I frequently launched into grand philosophic debates about democracy, religion, even gender. At the time, the country was at the peak of its election security debate and voter ID laws had begun popping up like wildfire. My father turned to me and proclaimed, “they are going to take it illegal for Black folks to vote.” A freshly minted political scientist, I didn’t hesitate in my pushback. Did he forget our right to vote was enshrined in the Constitution? That the 15th Amendment was designed to ensure all Americans had the right to vote, safely and without any barrier?

“There would need to be an amendment passed or a Constitutional Convention. Either way, it is extremely unlikely that it would ever occur,” I recall mounting as my closing argument.

Some years later, as I listened to the audio from the Louisiana v. Callais case, I realized how easily one could imagine that our nation has made meaningful progress like I so naively did when talking to my father. After all, America elected our nation’s first Black President and female Vice President. African Americans have climbed to the top of their fields in academia, medicine, sports and entertainment (a Black woman sits atop one of the most segregated charts — country music — reclaiming a genre indebted to Black culture).

But much like being Black in America, nothing has ever come that easy — we must read deeper. In the ongoing legal battle over Louisiana’s voting maps, Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated, “This court’s cases, in a variety of contexts, have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time — sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases — but that they should not be indefinite and should have an end point.”

So has America been shedding alligator tears since 1865 for all the injustices against Black Americans? And are those tears the “remedies” that Justice Kavanaugh expects us to accept as progress? That answer now lies with six white Justices, two Black and one Latina; a majority who appear to believe those tears were real.

Terrell Couch is a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project in Partnership with National Black Child Development Institute.


Read More

​U.S. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, sitting behind a desk, appearing for a hearing.

U.S. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FLA) appears for a hearing of the House Ethics Committee on Capitol Hill on March 26, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick Faces Expulsion Over Pocketing Overpayment

Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL20) has been charged by the federal government with “stealing federal disaster funds, laundering the proceeds, and using the money to support her 2021 congressional campaign.” The House Ethics Committee additionally is investigating her for incorrectly filing financial disclosures, accepting voluntary services for work that should have been paid, and of using her position to direct community project funding requests.

It all started with two extra zeros. Cherfilus-McCormick’s family business Trinity Health Care billed the state of Florida for $50,578.50 but mistakenly received $5,057,850.00. Rather than return the overpayment, she and other family members seem to have used most of that overpayment to fund her election campaign. She is also accused of setting up straw donor systems and filing false 2021 tax returns.

Keep ReadingShow less
Women gathered in circle.

Somali women and girls prepare for a buraanbur performance at the Tukwila Community Center on Jan. 24, 2026.

Patty Tang

As Immigration Hearings Accelerate, Somali Asylum Seekers Fear Losing Due Process

Across the Seattle region, Somali families are living with a level of fear that few others in our city fully see. This fear is rooted in sudden immigration court changes and in a national climate that feels increasingly unstable for people seeking asylum.

In recent months, immigration attorneys in multiple states, including here in Washington, have reported that Somali asylum hearings were abruptly rescheduled to earlier dates, in some cases moved forward by months or even years. Families who believed they had time to prepare are now scrambling to gather documentation, secure legal representation, and revisit traumatic experiences under compressed timelines.

Keep ReadingShow less
Michigan, Romulus Challenge Federal Plan for ICE Detention Center in Ongoing Legal Fight

U.S. Customs Protection officer

Photo provided by MILN

Michigan, Romulus Challenge Federal Plan for ICE Detention Center in Ongoing Legal Fight

Michigan officials and the city of Romulus have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, escalating a growing legal and political battle over plans to convert a local warehouse into an immigration detention center near Detroit.

The lawsuit, led by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and joined by the city, seeks to halt the federal government’s effort to repurpose a commercial warehouse in Romulus into a large-scale detention site operated by ICE.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court building.
Casey He

Blood or Soil? Why America is Turning Toward the 'Old World' Model

The Supreme Court heard more than two hours of argument in Trump v. Barbara, the case testing the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. Trump himself sat in the courtroom for part of the session, the first time a sitting president has done so. The moment was striking not only for its symbolism but also for what it revealed: a direct challenge to a constitutional principle that has defined American identity for more than 150 years.

The executive order, codified as Executive Order 14160 in January 2026, directs federal agencies not to recognize automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented parents or to parents on temporary visas. It turns on the opening words of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The administration reads “subject to the jurisdiction” narrowly. It argues that the phrase requires full political allegiance and permanent domicile, conditions that undocumented immigrants and short-term visa holders do not meet. The challengers, led by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a plaintiff identified as Barbara, insist the clause was meant to be sweeping. They point to the common-law tradition of jus soli - citizenship by place of birth - that the framers of the amendment knew and endorsed.

Keep ReadingShow less