Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The two bills Biden needs to sign as soon as possible to make the next election fair

Opinion

John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would create a new preclearance formula.

NurPhoto/Getty Images
Jackson is an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit focused on bolstering voting rights and curbing money's influence on politics.

The 2020 election year was the most logistically challenging in American history. Last February, just as the presidential primary season began, Covid-19 began spreading like wildfire, upending the rhythm of American life as we knew it. Yet, there was one event that could not be moved — the November general election.

Ultimately, 161 million citizens, the largest number ever, exercised their constitutional right to vote on or before Nov. 3. This historic turnout was a result of states implementing key reforms to the voting process that allowed citizens to receive and cast their ballots safely and securely during a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic.

Many of these changes should remain in place after the pandemic, including extended periods for early in-person voting, expanded use of absentee ballot drop boxes and no-excuse absentee voting.

However, election officials in states including Texas and Georgia have already announced plans to reverse these changes, even as the country sets records for new coronavirus cases, hospitalizations and deaths. These officials vengefully argue that their voter suppression tactics are necessary to protect against voter fraud, despite the fact that the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency confirmed the most recent election was "the most secure in American history." Rather than work to ensure that all eligible voters can continue to cast their ballots in the easiest and most secure manner possible, these officials are determined to unduly restrict who is able to vote and how.

Fortunately, the new Congress can send the new president two pieces of legislation that can stop these efforts before they begin.

In the last Congress, the Democratic-majority House passed what is now called the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act as well as the For the People Act, which was also known as HR 1. But both of these important measures lay dormant in a Senate controlled by Republicans. Enacting these two bills would ensure that all eligible voters are able to vote seamlessly and restrict state and local jurisdictions from disenfranchising voters in such minority communities as Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta — three of the most prominent places where Donald Trump focuses his ire and his baseless allegations after the election.

Voter suppression efforts reached a fever pitch after 2013, when the Supreme Court invalidated the Voting Rights Act's preclearance formula in Shelby County v. Holder. The VRAA, named for the late iconic civil rights leader and Georgia congressman, would create a new formula, which would subject state and local jurisdictions with a history of voting rights violations over the past 25 years to preclearance for a period of 10 years. If a jurisdiction became subject to preclearance, it would be forced to obtain federal approval for changes to its voter ID laws, redistricting processes, voting locations, voting opportunities and voter registration list maintenance if those changes would impact minority communities.

While striking down the previous preclearance formula as unconstitutionally outdated, the Supreme Court said that Congress was free to "draft another formula based on current conditions." However, for almost eight years, Congress has failed to act. The VRAA does exactly that – creating a new formula to address modern-day voter suppression nationwide.

The bill would also expand the circumstances under which a federal court could block discriminatory practices, revise the circumstances under which the Justice Department could assign election observers, and require covered jurisdictions to notify the public of changes to their voting practices. The legislation additionally would prevent state and local jurisdictions from closing polling places and early voting sites in minority neighborhoods.

HR 1, meanwhile, includes essential protections against voter purges, which states like Georgia have repeatedly used to cancel voters' registration simply for not voting. The bill would also require states to modernize their registration processes through automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration and online voter registration. These key reforms would protect voters even if they are improperly purged from the rolls and make it easier for election officials to process registration information.

This legislation would also restore voting rights to people with prior convictions who have completed their sentences. Voter disenfranchisement laws were originally passed in states throughout the South in response to the political power formerly enslaved African Americans achieved during Reconstruction. This bill would re-enfranchise approximately 4.7 million citizens nationwide who are currently prohibited from voting in federal elections.

Powerful legislative leaders in Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania and Michigan have already placed voter suppression at the top of their agendas for this year. The outgoing president planted seeds of doubt in many Americans' minds about the integrity and sanctity of our elections — and those could easily be transformed into fuel to suppress votes in the next election.

Congress must quickly pass both of these measures so that our new president, Joe Biden, can sign them early in his tenure. Doing so is vital for shielding Americans from the inevitable attacks on their right to vote that are on the horizon.


Read More

President Trump answers questions from reporters.

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters before boarding Air Force One on August 21, 2026 in Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Trump’s White House Press Ban Violates 1st Amendment

The principle is simple. Just like politicians are not supposed to pick their voters, government officials don’t get to pick the reporters who cover them.

If they did, the First Amendment would be meaningless. and we would no longer live in anything resembling a constitutional republic. That is why President Trump’s September 18 announcement that he is banning reporters from CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House is so dangerous.

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

The CLARITY Act crypto bill failed a procedural vote on Sept. 15, but it could return. Here's what it does, who would regulate crypto, and the Trump angle.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act, which failed in a procedural vote on Sept. 15, and a new venture by the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency company made us think it was time to write about the cryptocurrency legislation. Even though it’s not currently active, the bill could come back.

Keep ReadingShow less
When Money Trumps Life

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the 81st session of the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly at U.N. Headquarters on September 22, 2026 in New York City.

Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

When Money Trumps Life

Last week at the United Nations, Donald Trump showed the world just how little he values human life. In a single speech, he rattled off a laundry list of “hoaxes” to write off: climate change, AI, “Russia hoax,” “Ukraine hoax,” and more. Climate change, AI, and modern warfare all pose existential threats to civilization as we know it, and yet our president seems hellbent on gaslighting our fears while accelerating problems that threaten our survival. What would make a person behave in such a self-sabotaging way? Well, perhaps we should, as they say, follow the money.

Earlier this month, the UN warned that Earth is already 1.4°C hotter than before the industrial age and set to blow past the 1.5°C limit in the next few years. The World Health Organization projects that such warming will cause roughly 250,000 additional deaths a year starting in 2030. Any leader who values human life should recognize this as the existential threat it is and change course. Instead, Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the UN's founding climate treaty, and his EPA scrapped the scientific finding underpinning federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, in the first six months since launching his war in Iran, Trump's nine largest oil and gas holdings gained up to $4.4 million.

Keep ReadingShow less
 U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Pool/Getty Images

How Presidential Primetime Addresses Shape Public Trust in Democratic Institutions

A question still being studied is the effects on public trust when the head of the Executive casts doubt on the institutions that run elections, enforce laws, and decide legal disputes. The President of the United States is arguably the most powerful man in the world. He is the commander in chief of a nation #1 in nominal gross domestic product as well as #1 in military power, budget, and spending as of 2026. The actions he takes spew ripple effects across the world and follow many generations. A way you can measure the executive's power can also be measured in how much influence his speeches have on the markets, opinions of the masses, news outlets, lawmakers, social media reactions, etc. His framing of an issue can shape the next day’s political conversation.

These conversations become extremely dangerous/consequential when discussing a principle as embedded in our country as Democracy. In his July primetime speech, Trump continued to pedal the claims about election security and argued for stricter voting rules. He continued to portray the country as facing a moment of corruption and uncertainty, followed by presenting himself as the one prepared to restore order. The address continued with repeated claims about his loss in the 2020 election that have not been supported by the evidence compiled over years of investigation by many parties. Professional reviews, audits, and courts have yet to find significant evidence of foul play substantial enough to influence the outcome of that election.

Keep ReadingShow less