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the evidence being used to decide which areas — mostly in the South — were covered by "preclearance" was significantly out of date, and therefore unconstitutional and no longer valid.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

U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House February 20, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

When Secrecy Becomes Structural

Secrecy is like a shroud of fog. By limiting what people can see and check for themselves, the public gets either a glimpse (or nothing at all), depending on what gatekeepers decide to share. And just as fog comes in layers, so does withholding: one missing document, one delayed detail, one “not available” that becomes routine.

Most adults understand there are things that shouldn’t be shown. Lawyers can’t reveal case details to people who aren’t involved. Police don’t release information during an active investigation. Doctors shouldn’t discuss your medical history at home. The reason is simple: actual harm can follow when sensitive information is revealed too early or to those who shouldn’t be told.

Keep ReadingShow less
Friends, Conversation, and Social Cohesion During a Time of Polarization
selective focus photography of USA flaglet
Photo by Raúl Nájera on Unsplash

Friends, Conversation, and Social Cohesion During a Time of Polarization

In the middle of last summer, a group of old college friends, now over the age of forty, flew across the United States to a rural hunting lodge in Georgia. For three days, they stayed on the property, threw the football around, retold old stories, and played practical jokes on one another. One friend, a jack-of-all-trades, taught them how to refine their fishing skills, shoot guns, and better appreciate the outdoors. Every so often, one would sneak away to call a significant other or speak with their children. Meals were prepared together, and advance planning was kept to a minimum. Briefly free from the demands and worries of modern living, they were able to live in the moment.

For more than twenty years, this group has met in various locations across the United States. They took a road trip along the Pacific Coast Highway, camped in the Rocky Mountains, and spearfished in the Florida Keys. At other times, they rented Airbnbs to explore new cities and towns. Some of their best memories come from these gatherings. On one occasion, a friend led an epic karaoke session, delivering a full-throated rendition of Meat Loaf’s “I Would Do Anything for Love” in a packed dive bar. The energy in the room rivaled that of a modern music venue. Then there are practical jokes. Once, they arranged for the police to briefly handcuff and detain a friend the day before his wedding. Another time, one friend bought a lifelike Sasquatch costume and tried to lure everyone into the woods to scare them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Social media icons
A generation raised on social media and with far different priorities would write a vastly different Constitution than any of its predecessors.
Chesnot/Getty Images

How social media alerts shape daily decisions for undocumented youth

SAN DIEGO - Every morning before leaving the house, Mateo opens Instagram.

He is not looking for entertainment. He is checking whether it is safe to move around the city.

Keep ReadingShow less