Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
USA Presidential voters on electoral college map

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Federalism at Its Best

​People arrive at a polling location on the first day of early voting in Texas

Early voting records should scare GOP

​Border patrol SUV

How Border Policies Are Reshaping South Texas Politics

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico

Are Independent Voters About to Flip Texas?

Texas election security crackdown on the verge of death in the legislature

The Fulcrum
By The FulcrumMay 20, 2019
The Fulcrum
The Fulcrum staff.
See More Writings by author

Voting rights advocates are breathing a cautious sigh of relief at the apparent (but not quite final) demise of legislation in Texas they viewed as among the most draconian to move in any state this year.

The bill gained notice not only because of its breadth of election law changes but because it was being pushed so hard by Republican leaders just as the second-most-populous state in the country is starting to turn purplish after a quarter-century in the bright red.

The state Senate passed it last month, but on Sunday the measure did not earn a place on the agenda for the final week the state House session for 2019.

The measure was a priority for the most influential Republican in Austin, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who hailed it as essential to assuring elections security. But the heart of the bill – giving counties five years to use voting machines that provide an auditable, voter-verifiable paper trail – was stripped out in recent days, causing the limited bipartisan support to evaporate.

Left in were a series of provisions that critics see as certain to scare away poor, elderly and disabled voters as well as the legions of volunteers needed to keep the voting lines moving on Election Day. The measure would make voting by someone ineligible a felony (it's now a misdemeanor). It would increase criminal penalties for providing false information on a registration application, boost police investigative powers over elections, allow partisan poll watchers into some voting booths and require those who assist people in getting to the polls to detail precisely why they did so.

"This is a huge win for voting rights and against voter suppression," Anthony Gutierrez, executive director of Common Cause Texas, said in a statement Sunday after the bill was left off the calendar. "These fights are not over and we continue to be vigilant in watching for attempts to amend pieces of SB 9 onto other bills."

Although the entire package is dead, individual sections could still be tacked on to unrelated bills in the whirlwind of the Legislature's final week.


Latest news

Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection
Rule of Law

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Mahatma Gandhi addressing some of his thousands of followers on a lawn.
Democracy

Everyone Wants Peace. That’s the Problem.

Smoke hangs over the city against a twilight sky following an explosion during an air raid alert on October 2, 2026 in Kyiv, Ukraine
Governance & Legislation

Axis of Aggressors: How Four U.S. Adversaries Strengthen Each Other

Read More

news video camera
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

When the Cameras Went Dark: What a Press Ban Reveals About American Journalism

When I came to the United States from India in 1982, I did not trust newspapers. Back home, everyone knew which party a paper favored before reading a line. American television felt different. My family watched Peter Jennings every evening, and later I found Larry King on CNN, who let his guests talk instead of telling viewers what to think. That habit of holding everyone to one standard has mostly faded.

On Sept. 18, President Trump announced he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, saying their reporting was fake news. The next morning the Secret Service took reporters’ badges at the gate. The outlets sued on Monday, and Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS declined to take CNN’s turn in the television pool. On Sept. 24, Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed, blocked the ban for 14 days. He found the outlets likely to win on due process, because reporters got no notice and no chance to respond, and he doubted the government’s national security explanation. Trump’s answer was to call the judge “totally disloyal.”

Keep ReadingShow less
US Senate candidate Dan Osborn

Nebraska Independent US Senate candidate Dan Osborn.

Image obtained from YouTube

7 Independent Campaigns to Watch in the Final Days of the Midterms

Election Day on November 3, here are the seven independent campaigns we’ve followed closely, four for the Senate and three for the House, ranked by how competitive they are.

Fundraising figures are full-cycle totals from FEC reports, through the date noted for each race. Prediction-market odds come from Kalshi and were pulled on 10/23. Polls are pulled from the aggregated New York Times pages, with several low-quality polls highlighted by campaigns left out.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote

Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote inserted into a grey cardboard ballot box slot.

Getty Images

The First Amendment Does Not Belong to Political Parties

In a recent essay in Life & Liberty, Robert G. Natelson argues that open primaries may violate the First Amendment rights of political parties by allowing people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. His argument starts with the rights of the party. The more fundamental question is whether it starts in the right place at all: When a state conducts a primary election, whose rights are we even talking about?

Natelson’s answer is primarily the rights of political parties. He argues that because parties have a First Amendment right to decide with whom they associate, the government cannot require them to allow people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. He relies on a number of Supreme Court decisions involving political parties and places particular weight on National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. But in doing so, he moves too quickly past the most important fact in the debate: a state primary is an election conducted by the government, not a private meeting of a political organization.

Keep ReadingShow less
Side view of young African American male voter filling in ballot

An opinion piece argues that America must revisit Reconstruction after the Trump era, starting with the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Pressmaster/Getty Images

Radical Reconstruction: Looking to the Past To Move Forward

The last 11 years of electoral politics have plunged our nation into new lows: withdrawal and reentry into Middle Eastern conflicts, a politicized public health response during a pandemic, an attempted coup of the American government, and continual police brutality against people of color. Donald Trump’s existence on the political stage, in office or out, has held our nation hostage through repeated crises, leading us to the most divided time in our nation since the Civil War. The path forward for our young country doesn’t just require new ideas: we need to finally follow through on Reconstruction.

A blip in American history, Abraham Lincoln’s post-Civil War vision, called Reconstruction, was the proposed path forward for Southern reentry into American life. In exchange for loyalty to the Union and some guarantees of black civil protection, Lincoln prepared to readmit secessionist states into the Union, albeit with political restraints on numerous Confederate leaders.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026