Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Voting rights bills are personal. What is happening in your state?

Opinion

Lousiana House chamber

More than 1,000 bills related to voting rights have been introduced in state legislatures this year.

John Elk/Getty Images

Gifford is the founder and chief operating officer of ActiVote, which works to increase voter participation and civic engagement. ActiVote is partnering with the National Vote at Home Institute on a week-long event to highlight bills that affect voting in your state.


Voting rights bills are in the spotlight. Last week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law, live on Fox & Friends, joining Georgia, Arkansas, Iowa and Utah in a post-2020 frenzy to change rules and procedures surrounding voting.

More than 1,000 bills have been introduced in state legislatures around the country this year, touching all aspects of the way we cast votes. Some are restricting voting rights; others are expanding them. Some voters may have heard about the bills that get national attention, such as the controversial new law in Georgia, but most have little idea what is happening in their own state legislature.

Helping voters cut through the noise and know exactly what is happening in their state and in Congress is the core mission of ActiVote. Our nonpartisan app ensures that every voter can see all bills that affect them personally, see the candidates that they can vote for, and see where their candidates and legislators stand on the political spectrum.

This week ActiVote is teaming up with National Vote at Home Institute to spotlight all aspects of mail voting. The institute has catalogued and summarized all voting bills and offers the advice that we should be "alert not anxious." In the event, we feature educational summaries from NVHI explaining voting by mail, including signature verification, ballot drop boxes, risk-limiting audits, preprocessing of ballots, ballot tracking and curing, permanent absentee voter lists, prepaid postage and voter data integrity. Everyone can weigh in on where they stand on each of these topics by answering the survey.

Previous studies have shown that voting at home is not a partisan issue: Many people across the political spectrum prefer to have the time to sit down to study their ballot and the candidates for all the various races when they make their choices. At the same time, people want to make sure that their ballot arrives on time, is counted and, of course, that our elections are safe and secure. Many are uncertain about how to ensure that convenience for the voter and security of our elections can go hand in hand.

We believe that this week's event is an excellent opportunity for everyone supportive of convenient and secure elections to learn more about everything related to voting at home, see which bills are going through their state's legislature and to let their voices be heard in the event surveys.

Share your opinion on the various components of the bills in ActiVote surveys.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less