Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Progressives press Senate to make quick work of new election aid

Sen. Roy Blunt

Sen. Roy Blunt will convene a hearing in two weeks that might make clear how much more to smooth the election Republicans are willing to spend.

Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty Images

Progressive groups pressed the Senate on Friday to reconvene "immediately" and approve more aid for states struggling to prepare for a presidential contest in the middle of a pandemic.

A letter from 31 left-leaning organizations to the Republican majority leadership is highly unlikely to alter the calendar, which has senators in recess next week. Instead, it highlights that election funding will be a high-profile, intensely lobbied and potentially partisan issue when Congress does negotiate its next coronavirus recovery package.

Congress allocated $400 million in March to help states conduct elections this year, an amount labeled wholly insufficient not only by voting rights groups but also by state and local election officials from both parties.


Congress is gone from the Capitol until July 20, but its leaders are in the early stages of negotiating what would be the fifth measure designed to prop up the economy and control the Covid-19 pandemic. But top House Democrats and Senate Republicans seem deeply divided over the size and scope of the new package — casting doubt it can get done before another recess now set to start in early August.

The House voted along party lines eight weeks ago to pass a $3 trillion bill that included $3.6 billion in additional election subsidies to accommodate a virtually guaranteed surge in mail-in voting, make in-person voting safer and bolster online voter registration.

The Senate GOP has made no specific counter-offer beyond an opening bid of $1 trillion as the bottom line. And the party's leaders have been vague about how much more it's willing to provide state election administrators, in part because of President Trump's blistering if false claims that easy and expansive absentee voting assures a wave of election fraud.

That could soon change. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of the leadership and its top negotiator on election policy as chairman of the Rules and Administration Committee, announced Friday he would hold a hearing July 22 to consider how much more funding is necessary.

But the groups who penned the letter say Congress shouldn't wait that long — and that GOP senators have already delayed too much.

"With less than four months until the November election, time is of the essence," the letter says, adding:

"It should be clear to senators of both parties that the cost of ensuring that every eligible voter can safely cast their ballot amid this pandemic is a small price to pay to preserve our democracy — but given your efforts to block this funding over the past two months, it bears repeating that this pandemic continues to threaten the very foundation of our democracy."

The missive was sent to Blunt, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Appropriation Chairman Richard Shelby of Alabama. It was originated by Stand Up America and was signed by groups that similarly align with the left — including Move On, Common Cause, Fair Fight Action, Let America Vote, Public Citizen and Voto Latino.

The haggling over election money will take place amid a welter of other deliberations — including the scope of a new round of direct cash payments, how to extend enhanced unemployment benefits and whether the bill should settle the new battle between Trump and many Democrats over how the nation's schools should safely reopen.


Read More

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less