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the evidence being used to decide which areas — mostly in the South — were covered by "preclearance" was significantly out of date, and therefore unconstitutional and no longer valid.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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion
We the People billboard
Photo by Larry Alger on Unsplash

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

One of the most dangerous mistakes Americans are making right now is treating the threat to our democracy as a collection of daily outrages — the latest social media post, the latest threat, the latest norm broken. Those things are certainly bad, often stunningly so. But they are not the real problem. The real problem is structural, and it runs much deeper.

At his most charitable interpretation, Donald Trump does not think like an elected official operating inside a constitutional democracy. He thinks like a businessman. In that mindset, success is measured by dominance, efficiency, and loyalty. What produces results is kept; what resists is discarded. Rules are obstacles. Norms are optional. Institutions exist to serve the leader, not to restrain him. At present, this governing style is all about energizing perceived positives and minimizing perceived negatives. Increasingly, those “negatives” are people: immigrants, minorities, trans Americans, and the poor. The danger here is not just institutional; it is human. When checks and balances weaken, there are fewer brakes on policies that treat entire groups as costs to be managed rather than citizens to be protected.

Keep ReadingShow less
Criminals Promised, Volume Delivered: Inside ICE’s Enforcement Model

An ICE agent holds a taser as they stand watch after one of their vehicles got a flat tire on Penn Avenue on February 5, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Criminals Promised, Volume Delivered: Inside ICE’s Enforcement Model

Donald Trump ran on a simple promise: focus immigration enforcement on criminals and make the country safer. The policy now being implemented tells a different story. With tens of billions of dollars directed toward arrests, detention, and removals, the enforcement system has been structured to maximize volume rather than reduce risk. That design choice matters because it shapes who is targeted, how force is used, and whether public safety is actually improved.

This is not a dispute over whether immigration law should be enforced. The question is whether the policy now in place matches what was promised and delivers the safety outcomes that justified its scale and cost.

Keep ReadingShow less
As America Turns 250, It’s Time to Begin Again
selective focus photo of U.S.A. flag
Photo by Andrew Ruiz on Unsplash

As America Turns 250, It’s Time to Begin Again

I know so many people are approaching America’s 250th anniversary with a sense of trepidation, even dread. Is there really anything to celebrate given the recent chaos and uncertainty we’ve been experiencing? Is productively reckoning with our history a possibility these days? And how hopeful will we allow ourselves to be about the future of the nation, its ideals, and our sense of belonging to something larger than ourselves?

Amid the chaos and uncertainty of 2026, I find myself returning to the words of the writer and civil rights activist James Baldwin. Just as things looked darkest to Baldwin amid the struggle for civil rights, he refused to give up or submit or wallow in despair.

Keep ReadingShow less
Illinois 2nd District Candidates Meet Up in High-Energy Town Hall

Leading Democratic contenders for Illinois’ 2nd Congressional District gathered Thursday, February 12, for a televised town hall on the Chicago Access Television Network (CAN-TV)

CAN-TV

Illinois 2nd District Candidates Meet Up in High-Energy Town Hall

Several of the leading Democratic contenders for Illinois’ 2nd Congressional District gathered Thursday, February 12, for a televised town hall on the Chicago Access Television Network (CAN-TV), offering voters a rare opportunity to hear their priorities side by side as the competitive primary enters its final month. The forum was moderated by The Fulcrum's executive editor and Latino News Network's publisher Hugo Balta and public health and emergency management expert Dr. Suzet McKinney, who pressed the candidates on the district’s most urgent needs and the kind of leadership they believe residents deserve.

Former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller, State Sen. Willie Preston, and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Commissioner Yumeka Brown took part in the discussion. State Sen. Robert Peters, another top contender, was scheduled to appear but excused himself due to being taken ill.

Keep ReadingShow less