Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

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

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.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less