Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Senators who would be president say they want to win, literally, on paper

What's the best way to prevent more high-tech online Russian interference in the 2020 election? Millions of sheets of good old-fashioned paper.

That's what most of the Democratic senators running for president are signaling by proposing legislation Wednesday to require the use of hand-marked paper ballots in all federal elections – ideally starting with their own next year.


When Kamala Harris of California was asked on ABC's "The View" why paper ballots were the best method to ensure election security, her response was simple: "Because Russia can't hack a piece of paper."

Thirteen senators introduced the bill Wednesday. All are Democrats, and five of them are running for the White House, a virtual guarantee the measure will go nowhere in the Republican-majority Senate.

In addition, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the presidential aspirant who has power over election administration legislation as the top Democrat on the Rules and Administration Committee, has her own ideas for bolstering election security and did not sign on to this bill. Neither did Michael Bennet of Colorado. The presidential candidates who did were Harris, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

In addition to the paper ballot mandate, the bill would ban Internet, Wi-Fi and cellular connections for voting machines. The Department of Homeland Security would also have the authority for the first time to set minimum security standards at each stage in the voting process. And state and local governments would be given $500 million to buy up-to-par ballot scanning machines, with an additional $250 million allocated for ballot-marking machines for voters with disabilities.

States would also be reimbursed by the federal government for any expenses incurred for post-election audits or ballot printing, and states would be required to conduct audits after all federal elections to detect any cyberhacks.

The principal sponsor, Ron Wyden of Oregon, says he's already secured endorsements from the League of Women Voters, the Brennan Center for Justice, Protect Democracy, Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fair Fight Action, the group created by Stacey Abrams after she narrowly lost the governor's race in Georgia last fall.


Read More

A TSA employee standing in the airport, with two travelers in the foreground.

A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) worker screens passengers and airport employees at O'Hare International Airport on January 07, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. TSA employees are currently working under the threat of not receiving their next paychecks, scheduled for January 11, because of the partial government shutdown now in its third week.

Getty Images, Scott Olson

Nope. Nevermind. Some DHS agencies still shut down.

House Republicans reject clean bill to open shut-down DHS agencies (March 28 update)

House Republicans (and three Democrats) rejected the Senate's clean bill to end the shutdown late Friday night. Instead, the House passed a different bill that fully funds every agency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but for only 60 days with the knowledge that this short-term continuing resolution will not pass in the Senate.

Both chambers are out until April 13 so the shutdown is expected to last until then at least. Hope that no major weather disasters occur before then because FEMA is one of the DHS agencies out of commission (though some of its employees may be working without pay). It's possible that air travel security lines won't get worse since the President signed an Executive Order authorizing DHS to pay TSA workers. New DHS Secretary Mullin says paychecks will start to go out as early as Monday. How long can this approach continue? Unknown. Leaving aside the questionable legality of repurposing funds in this way, DHS may not be willing to keep paying TSA from these other funds long-term.

Keep ReadingShow less
Sketch collage image of businessman it specialist coding programming app protection security website web isolated on drawing background.

Amazon’s court loss over Just Walk Out highlights a deeper issue: employers are increasingly collecting workers’ biometric data without meaningful consent. Explore the growing conflict between workplace surveillance, privacy rights, and outdated U.S. laws.

Getty Images, Deagreez

The Quiet Rise of Employee Surveillance

Amazon’s loss in court over its attempt to shield the source code behind its Just Walk Out technology is a small win for shoppers, but the bigger story is how employers are quietly collecting biometric data from their own workers.

From factories to Fortune 500 companies, employers are demanding fingerprints, palmprints, retinal scans, facial scans, or even voice prints. These biometric technologies are eroding the boundary between workplace oversight and employee autonomy, often without consent or meaningful regulation.

Keep ReadingShow less
Primaries Are Already Shaping the 2026 Election – Here’s What We’re Seeing So Far
a person is casting a vote into a box

Primaries Are Already Shaping the 2026 Election – Here’s What We’re Seeing So Far

Primary elections are already underway across the United States, and this year’s contests are giving early clues about what voters may prioritize in the general election.

Several states have recently held high-profile primary races that could influence the balance of power in Congress over the next two years, in both state-wide and local elections. Many of these races involve open seats or competitive districts, making the outcomes especially significant as parties prepare for November.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs, including one that says "let the people vote."
Attendees hold signs advocating for voting rights and against the SAVE America Act at a rally to outside the U.S. Capitol on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Heather Diehl

The Senate Was Meant to Slow Us Down—Not Stop Us Cold

The Senate is once again locked in a familiar pattern: a bill with clear support on one side, firm opposition on the other—and no obvious path forward.

This time it’s the SAVE Act, framed by its supporters as a safeguard for election integrity and by its opponents as a barrier to voting access. The arguments are well-rehearsed. The positions are firm. And yet, beneath the policy debate sits a more revealing truth: in today’s Senate, the outcome of legislation is often shaped long before a final vote is ever cast.

Keep ReadingShow less