Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Passage of historic voting rights law takes a partisan turn

Voting Rights Act

The House on Friday passed legislation to restore a provision of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013. The bill would require advance approval of voting changes in states with a history of discrimination. Here President Lyndon Johnson shares one of the pens he used to sign the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with civil rights leader the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Washington Bureau/Getty Images

In a partisan vote on an issue that once was bipartisan, House Democrats pushed through legislation Friday that would restore a key portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Advancement Act passed the House 228-187, with all Democrats voting for the bill and all but one Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voting against it.

The bill faces virtually no chance of being considered in the Republican-controlled Senate.


The legislation would reverse the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling that eliminated the "preclearance" requirement. This was the mandate that changes in votings systems and procedures in areas with a history of voting discrimination be approved in advance by the federal courts or the Justice Department.

The court ruled 5-4 that the evidence being used to decide which areas — mostly in the South — were covered by "preclearance" was significantly out of date, and therefore unconstitutional and no longer valid.

Congress, in broadly bipartisan votes, had reauthorized the Voting Rights Act several times since its original passage and those reauthorizations were signed by Republican presidents.

The new legislation says a state would be subject to preclearance if there were 15 or more voting rights violations in the last 25 years or 10 or more voting rights violations in the last quarter century when one of those was committed by the state itself.

Under that formula, 11 states including the four most populous — California, Texas, Florida and New York, plus Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia -- would be subject to preclearance, according to an analysis by Facing South, a media platform for the Institute of Southern Studies.

But Republican Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois argued on the House floor that it was not clear which states would be covered by preclearance under the legislation.

"It doubles down on federalizing elections and would attempt to put every state and jurisdiction in the country under preclearance," Davis said.

Democrats argued that the 2013 Supreme Court ruling loosed a flood of laws and other actions intended to reduce voter participation, including purging of valid voters from registration rolls, cutbacks in early voting, polling place closures and onerous voter ID requirements.

In order to collect fresh evidence of ongoing voter discrimination, Democrats reconstituted the Elections Subcommittee of the House Administration Committee when they took control of the chamber this year. The Democratic chairwoman, Ohio's Marcia Fudge, conducted field hearings in eight states and the District of Columbia. The Judiciary Committee conducted another eight hearings.

Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, called the legislation a "good-hearted attempt" but that it could have unintended negative consequences.

Civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., 79, presided in the Speaker's chair during the vote and announced its final passage to a smattering of applause.


Read More

Construction worker


Low angle view of male construction workers framing a new house

Getty Images

Latino Workers Are the Backbone of America — But Inequities Persist

WASHINGTON — As the nation pauses today to mark Labor Day 2026, a glaring spotlight is shining on the massive economic influence, historical legacy, and evolving challenges of the Latino labor force. Once relegated to the margins of the broader American labor narrative, Latino workers are stepping into the national conversation as the indisputable backbone of the modern United States economy.

According to recent findings from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the overall labor market has shown unexpected strength, with a stable baseline keeping the Hispanic and Latino unemployment rate hovering around 4.8%. While this reflects a significant drop from the 5.3% peak recorded a year ago, advocacy groups argue that the metrics mask deeper inequalities that holiday celebrations tend to overlook.

Keep ReadingShow less
ball under basketball ring
ball under basketball ring
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Fairness and Inclusion in Women’s Sports

Two former NBA players have said they want to play in the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA). Enes Kanter Freedom and Royce White announced their intent to enter the WNBA draft, claiming—falsely—that they identify as women to force the WNBA to clarify its policy, which restricts participation to women without defining what it means to be a woman. The players’ announcement followed closely on the heels of WNBA player Sophie Cunningham’s public comments that it was “common sense” that only “biological women” be permitted to compete in the WNBA. Cunningham’s comments drew competing rallies to her games, either supporting or denouncing her stance. Her statement was preceded by the first Supreme Court ruling on eligibility for female sports competitions at the school and college level, a ruling that does not apply to professional sports. In West Virginia v. B. P. J., the Supreme Court affirmed that U.S. states may legally bar transgender girls and women from female school or collegiate sports teams, leaving states to decide.

Public discussion of this issue has been deeply polarized. Some on the political left have asserted that “trans women are women” and that anyone who opposes their participation in elite women’s sports is a bigot. Meanwhile, some on the political right have presented trans women athletes as male athletes stealing women’s trophies. This is a classic case of affective polarization—a phenomenon in which people feel their identities, values, or rights are at stake. They become less willing to consider alternative perspectives and demonize those with opposing views.

Keep ReadingShow less
 In an aerial view, the Stargate Oracle AI data center campus.

In an aerial view, the Stargate Oracle AI data center campus is seen on August 26, 2026 in Abilene, Texas

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Is AI Worth the Cost to Communities?

Picture a family living on a quiet street in an idyllic small town. Then a data center moves in next door. Trees are knocked down for a sprawling industrial campus, an enormous windowless building rises, and a maddening hum continues day and night. The family closes its windows, abandons the backyard, and struggles to sleep. Open space disappears, electric bills rise, and the company announces plans to expand—all in the name of jobs, tax revenue, and so-called progress.

While the family is fictional, its experience is not. Across the country, communities are confronting noise, rising electricity demand, water consumption, lost open space, and data centers approved with little public discussion. These costs raise a question the technology industry would rather avoid: Are the promised benefits of the artificial-intelligence boom worth what communities are being asked to sacrifice?

Keep ReadingShow less
Judge's hand holding wooden hammer

A lawyer breaks down 'rule of law' using everyday analogies—sports, board games—to explain why recent government actions threaten this founding principle.

naruecha jenthaisong/Getty Images

The Rule of Law Is Simple—and Essential to American Democracy

This series from Lawyers Defending American Democracy connects the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to current events that threaten democracy and the justice system. Each piece highlights the unique responsibility lawyers carry—through their oath, professional obligations, and roles in their communities—to help the public understand what’s at risk and to speak out when democratic principles are under threat. LDAD’s call to action is straightforward: as the Founders once did, we must recognize threats to constitutional values, demand accountability, and act to defend them.

Before the first No Kings rally last year, I carefully hand-lettered a sign that I thought perfectly encapsulated the day's theme. On one side, it read “IN THIS COUNTRY, THE RULE OF LAW IS KING." On the other, it read, "A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, NOT OF MEN (John Adams)." I carried my sign proudly, certain that it would be a big hit. But the only reaction I got was someone asking me, “Are you a lawyer?” I wonder what gave me away.

Keep ReadingShow less