Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

State officials seek no-strings funds for election security

State election officials are appealing to Congress for additional money for election security, but they want the next round of funding to arrive without restrictions.

The lobbying effort, launched this week by the Republican-majority National Association for Secretaries of State, could further complicate the fate of Capitol Hill efforts to improve the conduct of elections.

The House Democrats' political overhaul, HR 1, would set new nationwide requirements for election equipment vendors. But that measure faces a minimal chance of success in the Republican Senate. And the separate legislation being drafted on that side of the Capitol, written more narrowly to focus on improving election security in time for the 2020 balloting, may not include new grant funding for the states to purchase modern machinery and may only advance if mandatory paper backups and post-election audits are the strings attached for states to get funding.


Also, some congressional Republicans are against more grant money until they learn how the states spent the $380 million appropriated last year.

"If you're going to get money to the states, it doesn't help us to do it in the middle of a presidential election year," Democratic Secretary of State Jim Condos of Vermont told the news site FCW. "We're not going to have time between January and November of next year to do a whole lot of changes, [so] in order for that money to be spent, it really has to be done this year."


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less