Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Soft settlement ends Florida mail-in voting lawsuit

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by several advocacy groups hoping to ease some restrictions on voting.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Hours before a trial was set to begin, Florida has settled a lawsuit pressing for loosened vote-by-mail rules in time for next month's primary.

But the deal, announced Sunday evening, does not mandate much of what the plaintiffs had pushed for in the third-most-populous state, which has recently become the undisputed national center of the coronavirus pandemic. In general, the settlement tells the state to work more closely with the 67 county election administrators to try to soften the rules.


The suit — brought by the progressive Priorities USA and Dream Defenders, along with the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans and others — argued the highly contagious Covid-19 pandemic makes ready access to absentee voting critically important. It demanded that ballots postmarked by Election Day be counted if they arrive as long as 10 days late, that the state expand deployment of ballot drop boxes, that it provide free postage on returned ballots and that it ease restrictions on paid workers collecting mail-in ballots.

It also challenged Florida's limits on assistance for voters with disabilities, arguing it imposes unreasonable restrictions on speech and the right of association.

The settlement between the plaintiffs and Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration, filed just as a trial was set to begin Monday, does not insist on any of that.

It says canvassing of vote-by-mail ballots will begin 25 days ahead of the early voting window, up from the current 10 days; election supervisors will be encouraged, but not compelled, to maximize the use of drop boxes; and localities will be pushed by the state to do more to make absentee ballot applications and the ballots themselves available in Spanish.

It also instructs the secretary of state's office to hold at least one workshop with local elections officials before the general election to educate them on how federal funds can be used for pre-paid postage and voter accessibility issues, including how to use new voter accessibility technologies.

For counties that do not provide postage, the secretary of state will outline the process in a one-page document — directing local supervisors to inform voters who cannot afford postage to use a drop box or drop off their ballots at a local government office.

Finally, the settlement also outlines how GOP Secretary of State Laurel Lee will execute a social media campaign before the general election to inform voters of their options for voting by mail, as well as voting early or in person on Election Day.

"As a result of our lawsuit, Florida went from doing nothing to committing to educating and encouraging all 67 supervisors of elections to expand access to democracy " said Andrea Mercado, executive director of New Florida Majority, an independent voting rights organization, "This settlement is another step forward in the fight to secure free and safe elections for communities of color in Florida."

This settlement comes on the heels of a defeat for voting rights advocates in the largest purple state. A federal appeals court granted a request from Gov. Ron DeSantis to delay the trial for a suit that would expand voting rights for felons until August, and last week the Supreme Court declined to intervene — meaning several hundred thousand felons given the right to vote through a 2018 referendum will not be able to cast ballots in the nominating contests.

Matthew Dietz, a lawyer who represents blind voters, told the Tampa Bay Times he wasn't satisfied with the settlement and would push on with his effort to make supervisors use systems that will allow blind or print-impaired voters to be able to fill out ballots from home without assistance.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less