Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

SPLC pledges $100 million for voter engagement in the South

Georgia voting stickers
Megan Varner/Getty Images

The Southern Poverty Law Center announced Monday a $100 million, decadelong investment in voter outreach across five Southern states.

The civil rights organization, which has been criticized in recent years for an anti-conservative bias, will be partnering with other groups through its year-old Vote Your Voice initiative.

While all five of the targeted states — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi — had increased voter turnout in 2020 compared to 2016, three of them ranked among the dozen with the lowest participation rate last year. Only Florida (15th) and Georgia (25th) ranked higher than 40th.


Each of the states underperformed the national average for turnout, although Georgia and Mississippi were just slightly below. Only Mississippi exceeded the national average for turnout among Black voters, while Florida was more than 10 points below.

According to the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice, since the 2020 election 19 states have enacted a total of 33 laws that make it harder for people to vote. Georgia has been cited nationally as one of the states to impose the most restrictive changes, after the state went for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time since 1992. The Republican-controlled Legislature has since taken a number of steps to tighten voting rules.

Florida has also been cited by voting rights advocates for its own sweeping changes to voting laws.

“[To] ensure a government exists that truly is by the people and for the people, we must expand our efforts to push against the anti-democratic statements and actions of many state and local officials in the Deep South,” said SPLC President and CEO Margaret Huang. “We are thankful for the hard work of all of our grant partners; these organizations’ successes help to empower voters whose rights have been violated for too long.”

Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill, who oversees elections, told WSFA12 News that he is concerned SPLC’s investment is biased against conservatives.

“It is a targeted effort to ensure that liberal special interest groups that have been targeted by the SPLC are identified and motivated to go to the polls,” he said.

Grants awarded through Vote Your Voice will support civic engagement programming, increasing fundraising opportunities, training new political leaders, building engagement in advance of the 2030 round of redistricting, and developing new tactics and tools.

Another Southern state was in the news Monday, when the Justice Department announced it had filed a lawsuit against Texas for racial discrimination in the redistricting process.

While a number of states that had been subject to a Voting Rights Act provision that required them to get prior approval from the federal government before making election-related changes, that “preclearance” section has been struck down by the Supreme Court. But the DOJ retains the power to enforce other elements of the act.

“Our complaint today alleges that the redistricting plans approved by the Texas state Legislature and signed into law by the governor will deny Black and Latino voters an equal opportunity to participate in the voting process and to elect representatives of their choice, in violation of the Voting Rights Act,” Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta said at press conference. “Our complaint also alleges that several of those districts were drawn with discriminatory intent.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office called the suit “absurd.”

The Justice Department alleges that Legislature intentionally drew state and federal district lines to minimize the votes of minorities, even though increases in the Black and Latino populations drove the changes.

“For example, Texas will gain two new congressional seats because of its population growth, almost all of which is due to growth in the state’s minority population. However, Texas has designed both of those new seats to have white voting majorities,” said Gupta. “The congressional plan also deliberately reconfigured a West Texas district to eliminate the opportunity for Latino voters to elect a representative of their choice. This is the third time in three decades where Texas has eliminated a Latino electoral opportunity in this same district, despite previous court determinations that this violates the law.”

While the Supreme Court has determined states should be the arbiters of partisan gerrymandering, the federal government may still intervene when racial gerrymandering is discovered.

And in North Carolina, the courts have become involved in a fight over new maps, with four cases working through the system.


Read More

Members of a women's softball team cheerfully join hands during practice on a sunny day, showcasing team spirit, cooperation, and enthusiasm for the sport.

Do trans women have a strength advantage? A look at studies on hormone therapy, muscle mass, and why it should determine eligibility in women's sports.

luza studios/Getty Images

Trans Females Are Not Biological Males - Let Them Play on Female Teams

Most Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans—many following the lead of President Trump—feel that it is not right for trans females to participate in women's sports. But the trans community, supported by those on the left wing of the Democratic Party, insists that this is part of ensuring the rights of trans people. The issue has been divisive among Democrats.

This is a complex issue. On the one hand, boys are boys, and girls are girls. That's the basic fact behind male and female sports, other than some intramural school sports that have boys and girls on the same team. Because boys are biologically stronger and faster than girls, separate leagues have been developed for both. This has nothing to do with gender identity; it is just a reflection of biological fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
An aerial view of a Flock camera

An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Flock Cameras Are Coming Down – but We Need More To Dismantle the Surveillance State

Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.

But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.

Keep ReadingShow less