Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Neither party will be happy with new voter ID study

Republicans and Democrats may not agree on much, but both parties are going to be equally frustrated by a new study from the widely respected National Bureau of Economic Research. The report concludes that strict voter identification laws are not doing much to depress registration or turnout overall or by any demographic group – but neither are they doing much to prevent voter fraud or increase confidence in the election system.

"Overall, our results suggest that efforts to reform voter ID laws may not have much impact on elections," authors Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons conclude.

Their findings create a potential stumbling block for House Democrats as they seek to make provisions easing registration and access to the polls (in the name of boosting turnout) a central selling point for their comprehensive political process overhaul bill, dubbed HR 1. But at the same time the study suggests that Republican-run states' moves to make access to the polls more bureaucratically complex (in the name of crime prevention and public credibility) are largely for naught.


The study was based on 1.3 billion data points about the past five federal elections including people who voted, those who registered but did not vote and those who were eligible but not registered. Looking at the population's political behavior over a decade, the authors said, is what allowed them to conclude there was no discernible change in registration or voting patterns in states that stiffened voter ID requirements.

HR 1 would set new national standards for elections including automatic and same-day voter registration, the restoration of voting rights for felons, an expansion of early voting and mail-in voting, and a requirement that a sworn affidavit be an acceptable substitute for an ID card at the polls. The bill looks doomed to die in the GOP Senate after the Democratic House passes it this spring.

"No matter where you stand on the voter fraud-voter suppression controversies, these findings strengthen the case for dialing down outrage, reducing anxiety and generally recognizing that if we stopped pushing for these laws and stopped freaking out about how they supposedly doom democracy, voting in America would rattle along basically unchanged," the conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote. "But since it's conservatives and Republicans who are the prime mover here, because they're generally the ones pushing legal changes, they also have the primary obligation to step back and stand down."


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