Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Voting Rights Advancement Act will be voted on soon. Here's what to know.

Voting rights rally

The House is expected to vote on the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act this week.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

As the House returns from recess this week, Democrats will make their latest push for a major upgrade to voting rights protections nationally.

The long-awaited John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act was introduced by Rep. Terri Sewell of Alabama last week, and House Democratic leaders say a vote on the bill is imminent.

Voting rights advocates believe the VRAA would provide critical protections for minority voters at a time when many states are enacting new limits on voting access. But like the For the People Act, it's unclear how the VRAA will overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate.


What would the Voting Rights Advancement Act do?

Named after the late civil rights leader and lawmaker John Lewis, the VRAA would restore and strengthen provisions of the original 1965 Voting Rights Act. Primarily, it would reinstate preclearance, or the requirement that certain jurisdictions get advance approval of their election laws from the Justice Department.

Initially, preclearance prevented states (or portions of states) with histories of racial discrimination from enacting additional laws that suppressed the rights of nonwhite voters. But in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the constraint, finding that, while previously appropriate, it was no longer necessary and placed an unconstitutional burden on governments.

The VRAA would use a new formula to determine the states and localities that require federal oversight. Only places that meet a high threshold of infractions — 10 violations, if at least one is statewide, or 15 total over the last 25 years — would be subject to preclearance.

House Democrats passed a version of this bill in 2019, but it was later blocked by Senate Republicans. In this second attempt, Democrats added a provision addressing a Supreme Court decision from earlier this summer. In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the court's conservative majority ruling made it harder to challenge election laws for being potentially discriminatory against minority voters. The VRAA would amend the Voting Rights Act to eliminate this higher standard for voter discrimination challenges.

Voting rights advocates see the VRAA as a critical tool for protecting minority communities not only from restrictive election laws, but also from partisan map manipulations. Most of the country is at a high risk of gerrymandering as politicians control the redistricting process in 39 states.

How is this bill different from the For the People Act?

Democrats and voting rights advocates say the VRAA is not a replacement for the For the People Act. Instead, they say, the two bills would work in tandem.

While the VRAA would prevent discriminatory voting laws from being enacted in the future, the For the People Act would establish nationwide standards for voting and election policies.

The For the People Act would mandate automatic voter registration, two weeks of early voting and no-excuse absentee voting, among other voting expansions. It would also eliminate partisan gerrymandering by requiring states to use independent commissions to draw election maps. And the bill would curb the influence of wealthy special interests by creating a small-dollar public financing system for federal elections and bolstering transparency around political spending.

What's the likelihood the VRAA will become law?

Similar to the For the People Act, the VRAA will face steep opposition in the Senate once it passes through the House. Only one Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, has signaled support for the legislation, meaning it likely won't receive the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

In June, Republican Senators blocked a motion to begin debate on the For the People Act, stalling its progress. Democrats promised to make another push in September, but there is no clear path forward for either bill unless the filibuster is reformed or eliminated.

Read More

We Are Not Going Back to the Sidelines!

Participants of the seventh LGBTIQ+ Political Leaders Conference of the Americas and the Caribbean.

Photograph courtesy of Siara Horna. © liderazgoslgbt.com/Siara

We Are Not Going Back to the Sidelines!

"A Peruvian, a Spaniard, a Mexican, a Colombian, and a Brazilian meet in Lima." This is not a cliché nor the beginning of a joke, but rather the powerful image of four congresswomen and a councilwoman who openly, militantly, and courageously embrace their diversity. At the National Congress building in Peru, the officeholders mentioned above—Susel Paredes, Carla Antonelli, Celeste Ascencio, Carolina Giraldo, and Juhlia Santos—presided over the closing session of the seventh LGBTIQ+ Political Leaders Conference of the Americas and the Caribbean.

The September 2025 event was convened by a coalition of six organizations defending the rights of LGBTQ+ people in the region and brought together almost 200 delegates from 18 countries—mostly political party leaders, as well as NGO and elected officials. Ten years after its first gathering, the conference returned to the Peruvian capital to produce the "Lima Agenda," a 10-year roadmap with actions in six areas to advance toward full inclusion in political participation, guaranteeing the right of LGBTQ+ people to be candidates—elected, visible, and protected in the public sphere, with dignity and without discrimination. The agenda's focus areas include: constitutional protections, full and diverse citizenship, egalitarian democracy, politics without hate, education and collective memory, and comprehensive justice and reparation.

Keep ReadingShow less
ICE’s Growth Is Not Just an Immigration Issue — It’s a Threat to Democracy and Electoral Integrity

ICE’s Growth Is Not Just an Immigration Issue — It’s a Threat to Democracy and Electoral Integrity

Getty Images

ICE’s Growth Is Not Just an Immigration Issue — It’s a Threat to Democracy and Electoral Integrity

Tomorrow marks the 23rd anniversary of the creation of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Created in the aftermath of 9/11, successive administrations — Republican and Democrat — have expanded its authority. ICE has become one of the largest and most well-funded federal law enforcement agencies in U.S. history. This is not an institution that “grew out of control;” it was made to use the threat of imprisonment, to police who is allowed to belong. This September, the Supreme Court effectively sanctioned ICE’s racial profiling, ruling that agents can justify stops based on race, speaking Spanish, or occupation.

A healthy democracy requires accountability from those in power and fair treatment for everyone. Democracy also depends on the ability to exist, move, and participate in public life without fear of the state. When I became a U.S. citizen, I felt that freedom for the first time free to live, work, study, vote, and dream. That memory feels fragile now when I see ICE officers arrest people at court hearings or recall the man shot by ICE agents on his way to work.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meet the Faces of Democracy: Toya Harrell

Toya Harrell.

Issue One.

Meet the Faces of Democracy: Toya Harrell

Editor’s note: More than 10,000 officials across the country run U.S. elections. This interview is part of a series highlighting the election heroes who are the faces of democracy.


Toya Harrell has served as the nonpartisan Village Clerk of Shorewood, Wisconsin, since 2021. Located in Milwaukee County, the most populous county in the state, Shorewood lies just north of the city of Milwaukee and is the most densely populated village in the state with over 13,000 residents, including over 9,000 registered voters.

Keep ReadingShow less